Draft letter for institutions to sign to implement Berlin
harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Fri Dec 26 14:37:35 EST 2003
Please don't misunderstand me. I don't begrudge a penny of the (I believe)
$9 million subsidy awarded to PLoS. It is money well-spent. But, *for
the same money* you could be promoting the unified joint open-access
provision strategy at all times, thereby not losing one bit of OA via
OA publishing, yet gaining a lot more OA via OA self-archiving, instead
of promoting OA publishing alone.
OA self-archiving has benefitted, indirectly, from all the promotion
and press coverage that has been accorded to PLoS and BMC, because it
has raised OA consciousness in general, and prepared people a *little*
better for understanding OA self-archiving too. But certainly not for
having made direct mention of self-archiving, let alone promoted it as
an integral part of a unified open-access provision strategy.
*That* is what could still be so easily remedied. If *I* (with no subsidy or
promotional budget) can faithfully describe the unified joint OA strategy every
time I write or speak about it, it seems to me PLoS and BMC should be able to do
so too (without diverting a penny of their funding or their energy from their own
OA component: just doing a lot more for OA at the same time). And, as I've said
before, OA growth via self-archiving stands to accelerate the growth of OA journal
>sh> If the Public Library of Science is dedicated to promoting OA for all
>sh> journal articles, and not just to promoting OA journal publishing for its
>sh> own articles, I hope that it will elect to use its vast subsidy to promote
>sh> the Unified Joint OA Provision Policy, rather than just promoting OAJ alone.
> PLoS does not have a "vast subsidy".
I stand corrected. But compared to zero, even a mere $9 million might be excused
for being seen as vast. ;>)
> We have a grant from the Moore
> Foundation, the explicit purpose of which is to launch and promote open
> access journals like PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine. We believe that the
> long-term success of open access requires building broad community support,
> and thus we have always been engaged in promoting open access in general.
If publishing in an open access journal were always explicitly presented
as one component in a two-component open-access provision strategy --
the other component being to self-archive all of one's toll-access articles
for which there is not yet a suitable open-access journal -- not only
would it give authors and their institutions and funders a much more
realistic picture of what an author desirous of providing open access
for his work can do, but it would do a great deal to help accelerate
OA provision via self-archiving.
> However, we also believe that the long-term success of open access requires
> a robust and vibrant open access publishing sector, and that PLoS has to
> remain focused on this goal if we are to succeed.
If I ever ask you to do something that jeopardizes the long-term success of open
access or the growth of a robust and vibrant open-access publishing sector,
please draw it to my attention, and I will immediately withdraw the request!
I don't believe I am doing anything like that right now!
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist Open Access Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):
Post discussion to: september98-forum at amsci-forum.amsci.org
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.
More information about the Jrnlnote