---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 16:59:20 -0700
From: Heather Morrison <heatherm at eln.bc.ca>
To: American Scientist Open Access Forum
<AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM at LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Subject: Distinguishing the Access Problem from the Affordability Problem
[Two postings from Heather Morrison, each followed by
Moderator's Reply]
----------------------------------------------------------------
1.
While the need for open access and the crisis in scholarly publishing
are two separate issues, it is important to consider both together.
If researchers continue to publish in journals that researchers
themselves (indirectly, through their libraries) cannot afford, then
the crisis in the scholarly publishing industry will continue. If the
researchers self-archive articles in journals that are not affordable,
then we have achieved open access to these articles, but in the long
run, if alternatives are not developed and supported, then commercial
publishers no longer under pressure could easily drop policies adopted
during the current debate.
It is clear to me that not only are both roads to open access
desirable, but both are absolutely necessary. Researchers need to
participate in open access (or at least affordable alternative)
publishing, in addition to self-archiving.
Heather G. Morrison
Project Coordinator
BC Electronic Library Network
Phone: 604-268-7001
Fax: 604-291-3023
Email: heatherm at eln.bc.ca
Web: http://www.eln.bc.ca
MODERATOR'S REPLY:
Heather Morrison wrote:
> If researchers continue to publish in journals that researchers
> themselves (indirectly, through their libraries) cannot afford, then
> the crisis in the scholarly publishing industry will continue.
As long as journals are unaffordable, they are unaffordable. That
is undeniable.
> If the researchers self-archive articles in journals that are not
> affordable, then we have achieved open access to these articles, but
> in the long run, if alternatives are not developed and supported,
> then commercial publishers no longer under pressure could easily
> drop policies adopted during the current debate.
First there was the worry that if we self-archive, our publishers
will sue us. Now that they say go ahead and self-archive, we worry
that they will change their minds: When will we stop worrying and
just go ahead and self-archive?
The pressure not to oppose self-archiving did not come from the
pricing negotiations, it came from the evidence and pressure for the
obvious benefits of OA for research and researchers. Why would anyone
imagine that an increase in OA will decrease rather than increase that
pressure (for OA)?
> It is clear to me that not only are both roads to open access
> desirable, but both are absolutely necessary. Researchers need to
> participate in open access (or at least affordable alternative)
> publishing, in addition to self-archiving.
Authors will continue to choose journals based on their
quality, content, track-record and impact, not their price.
But please see the Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.eprints.org/signup/
Stevan Harnad
------------------------------------------------------------
2.
From: Heather Morrison <heatherm at eln.bc.ca>
Subject: Elsevier Gives Authors Green Light for Open Access Self-Archiving
Do-it-yourself editing???
Elsevier's Karen Hunter wrote:
> By "his version" we are referring to Word or Tex file, not a PDF or HTML
> downloaded from ScienceDirect - but the author can update the version
> to reflect changes made during the refereeing and editing process.
This is do-it-yourself editing, right? The author is free to post the
final, refereed version, but must take the responsibility for editing
and proofreading from the author's own preprint?
Researchers deserve better! When a researcher essential gives away the
ability to reap monetary reward from publishing an article, the least
the publisher can do is provide the author with the fruits of their own
labour, in the form of the final electronic version(s).
If this is full "green", then I think we need new shades. This is a
pale, half-hearted green, which might be seen as a token form of
supporting open access which is actually meant to discourage it in
practice. A true full green should be reserved for publishers willing
to provide the final copy in electronic format.
This is a step in the right direction though, and congratulations to
Elsevier.
One positive in this do-it-yourself editing approach from the
commercial publishing side is that it gives an added edge to the open
access publishers, who are willing to provide the self-archiving
researcher with a superior product.
Heather Morrison
MODERATOR'S REPLY:
Heather Morrison <heatherm at eln.bc.ca> wrote:
> Elsevier's Karen Hunter wrote:
>kh> By "his version" we are referring to Word or Tex file, not a PDF or
>kh> HTML downloaded from ScienceDirect - but the author can update the
>kh> version to reflect changes made during the refereeing and editing
>kh> process.
>> This is do-it-yourself editing, right? The author is free to post
> the final, refereed version, but must take the responsibility for
> editing and proofreading from the author's own preprint?
No, this is do-it-yourself self-archiving of the final, refereed
version. (If there has been any substantive editing, the author is
free to incorporate that too.)
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#What-self-archive
> Researchers deserve better! When a researcher essentially gives away
> the ability to reap monetary reward from publishing an article, the
> least the publisher can do is provide the author with the fruits of
> their own labour, in the form of the final electronic version(s).
Heather: Ne faites pas plus royaliste que le roi! This is exactly
the point on which the well-meaning library community is profoundly
misunderstanding what the research community wants and needs, now,
and risks becoming a part of the problem rather than the solution. As
I wrote, presciently, in the announcement of Elsevier's going green:
>sh> There will be the predictable cavils from the pedants and those who
>sh> have never understood the real meaning and nature of OA: "It's only the
>sh> final refereed draft, not the publisher's PDF," "It does not include
>sh> republishing rights," "Elsevier is still not an OA publisher."
What researchers deserve and want and need is open access to
their refereed research, now (in fact, a decade ago). This should
not be allowed to be delayed or diverted for one microsecond
more in favour of holding out for which-hunting (sic).
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0025.
The "monetary reward" issue is squarely a library/affordability issue.
Please do not let it becloud a very clear picture insofar as the
issue of access is concerned.
The self-archived OA version of a refereed journal article is a
*supplement*, not a *substitute*, for the canonical journal version.
It is a supplement that is provided by the author so that no would-be
user whose institution cannot afford to subscribe to the journal
version is ever again denied access to the article.
That (and nothing else) is what OA is about. There may *possibly*
be some eventual spin-offs for the affordability problem; but at
tail must not be allowed to wag the dog, especially now, when
there is as yet hardly any dog!
> If this is full "green", then I think we need new shades. This is
> a pale, half-hearted green, which might be seen as a token form of
> supporting open access which is actually meant to discourage it
> in practice. A true full green should be reserved for publishers
> willing to provide the final copy in electronic format.
Dear Heather, none of this well-intentioned exactingness
is helpful to either OA or to researchers! The SHERPA/Romeo
list already codes far too many trivial and even incoherent
distinctions with far too many useless and uninformative colors:
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php?all=yes
That is precisely why we have had to create the Southampton/Romeo
version:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Romeo/romeosum.htmlhttp://romeo.eprints.org/publishers.html
The Romeo Directory of publishers' self-archiving policies is not
primarily intended as a detailed database for traditional library
permissions/IP specialists cataloguing publishers' usage restrictions
on bought-in content.
It is intended for researcher/authors trying to find out which
journals have already given the green light to self-archiving (and
how their numbers are growing).
> This is a step in the right direction though, and congratulations
> to Elsevier.
It is the *only* step publishers *must* take for OA. The rest of it
is all down to researchers. And the library community is not helping
if it keeps putting the stress on the wrong sylLABLE...
> One positive in this do-it-yourself editing approach from the
> commercial publishing side is that it gives an added edge to the
> open access publishers, who are willing to provide the self-archiving
> researcher with a superior product.
The only relevant edge here is the edge of the growth curve for OA
provision. Let us hope the bright green light will now guide that
toward 100% without further delay.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif
Stevan Harnad
