Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

All that’s gold, may not glitter: the harsh reality of open access

A recent article on The Conversation, “Busting the top five myths about open access publishing” is a spirited defense of open access (OA) publishing. The article, by ANU’s Danny Kingsley, outlined “myths…

We need to ask more questions before we plunge academia into a world of free and open journal research. Golden book image from www.shutterstock.com

A recent article on The Conversation, “Busting the top five myths about open access publishing” is a spirited defense of open access (OA) publishing.

The article, by ANU’s Danny Kingsley, outlined “myths” about the open access movement. This movement seeks to provide unrestricted access to scholarly research that usually resides in expensive academic journals.

But what is a myth to some, can be a confronting reality to others.

The view from here

Open access advocates normally work in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, mechanics) subjects. The view of open access in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences is often very different.

What is striking about open access in Australia is the lack of serious debate on the issue. It is good that Kingsley and others are organising to generate such discussion. However, simple advocacy won’t do; we need informed debate and to consider carefully any possible unintended consequences that come with the adoption of open access.

We also can’t ignore how open access develops elsewhere. If the major international publishers adopt a particular approach to open access, then Australian academics and universities are going to have work with that model.

Going for gold

Career prospects and international profiles depend on publications in international journals. We may not like it, but in the humanities, where you publish is often as important as what you publish. There are no highly rated open access journals in my field of research (International Relations) for example.

UK publishers are moving to adopt what is known as the “gold” model of academic publishing. Under this system the cost of publishing government funded research will be moved from library budgets to research budgets.

Essentially this involves robbing Peter to pay Paul. Given the current budgetary pressures on higher education in Australia, it is sensible to assume this, or something close to it, will be the model adopted by the Australian Research Council (ARC) – one of the main sources of research funding in Australia.

Currently ARC policy demands that research funded by them be published in a repository within 12 months. However, in many cases authors and institutions will have to pay publishers fees to meet this deadline. So effectively the ARC is already moving towards a “gold” scheme.

Under a “gold” scheme, authors pay Article Processing Charges (APCs) to have their papers peer reviewed, edited and made freely available. The typical APC is projected to be around £1,000 per article, although this figure could vary from discipline to discipline, and journal to journal.

The question is, who is going to pay this fee?

Initially, Research Councils United Kingdom (RCUK, the equivalent of the ARC) will pay universities an annual block grant to support the charges. In turn, RCUK expects universities to set up and manage their own publication funds. But questions remain about how this system will operate and what the unintended consequences might be.

Unintended consequences

Funding for APCs, will have to come from somewhere. Assuming that the ARC follows the UK model, will financially stretched universities restrict access to APC funds to highly rated and research active departments? Will universities who perform poorly in the ERA be denied access to the APC funds? And will those at the top of the research pile gain access to more of the funding?

This has already begun to happen in the UK as research funds become concentrated in a few research active universities.

It could be that we see the development of an internal market among journals with top rated journals asking for higher APC rates.

If that does happen, some journals could go out of business as competition for APCs drive a new market. And if such a market develops, lower ranked universities could refuse to pay the higher fees demanded by the higher rated journals, in turn disadvantaging their staff.

As competition for publishing funds develops universities will have to make hard decisions about which areas of research and which researchers should have access to the funds. For example, will only higher rated research stars be supported or given preferential access to publishing funds?

This could eventually lead to a “rationing” of research papers as competition for funds intensifies. Junior members of staff attempting to develop a research profile could suffer under such a system.

This could have an effect on learned societies and professional associations which are largely funded through journal subscriptions.

PhD and postdoctoral students could also be affected, particularly if universities deny them access to APC funds. This could make it more difficult for students to get their first step on the career ladder.

Monographs, which are particularly important to academics in the humanities, could also be affected by open access. Publishers argue that the low sales figures of many monographs mean that they are only viable due to the cross subsidy provided by the journal subscriptions. As such, publishers may take a risk-averse approach to single authored monographs.

Myth or reality?

The knock on effects of a new publishing financial system will surely go well beyond journals.

We cannot know how the proposed open access system will develop, but the consequences clearly vary from discipline to discipline, and from model to model.

Kingsley does an admirable job in exposing some of the “myths” surrounding open access. But the problem is that in the Art, Humanities and Social Science some of these “myths” could well be reality.

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

119 Comments sorted by

  1. Sean Lamb

    Science Denier

    Do editorships and journals represent ways that senior academics can make a little extra cash or get any perks - or are they prestige positions only?

    Private academic publishers make very large profits on their virtual monopolies, so it is worth asking if any kickbacks come to senior academics in making these profits?

    Open access under non-profit rules should slash costs - especially as most people access papers online only. So instead of viewing as robbing Peter to pay Paul - it should be seen as robbing Peter of a much smaller amount to pay Paul considerably less than he was receiving before.

    And since costs are slashed access to post-graduate publishing should be greater than ever before.

    report
    1. Alex O. Holcombe

      Associate Professor, School of Psychology at University of Sydney

      In reply to Sean Lamb

      Yes, although I don't support *requiring* researchers to publish gold (often the "green road" of posting your manuscript on your university website or other repository is better), certainly the costs involved are much smaller than the current subscription-based system.

      The £1,000 per article quoted in this piece is an overestimate, partly because it reflects legacy, less-efficient publishing platforms. For instance, the new mega-journal PeerJ charges less than $200 per author per article.

      report
    2. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Alex O. Holcombe

      The problem with university repositories is they aren't really that accessible - unless you can find a way to automatically connect repositories to pubmed or indexing databases in other disciplines.

      report
    3. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Alex O. Holcombe

      The figure is less than that quoted in the Finch report, and a bit more than some publishers (Sage about 900), but a lot less than others, 2500+ for some; so its a low estimate for high quality publishers. Re green OA journals. Sure you can publish anything on line on your own website, or in a repository, you don't need journals. So why journals? They get you hired or promoted. Try getting a job with a cv that only has stuff published on your own website (green).

      report
    4. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Sean Lamb

      Correct, but it's also a matter of prestige. As I say in piece, for AHSS where you publish often maters more than what you publish.

      report
    5. Alex O. Holcombe

      Associate Professor, School of Psychology at University of Sydney

      In reply to Colin Wight

      I agree about the green road it seems- I am suggesting to use it to ensure the article is accessible while also publishing the article in a journal to get the prestige. That's the ARC policy (that you can post the author version rather than the publisher version), another difference from the NIH.

      About the article fee for high quality publishers, I'm not sure what aspect of quality you want but PeerJ (which will likely average more than 10 times cheaper than Sage etc.) has gotten rave reviews. Probably because they built their publishing platform from the ground up rather than relying on legacy systems, their platform works better and provides a better user interface for the author trying to get all their files and the relevant details into the publisher website.

      report
    6. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      ALL THAT'S OA ISN'T GOLD

      This was a disappointingly uninformed article, especially about Green Open Access (OA), which certainly does *not* mean "publish[ing] anything on line on your own website, or in a repository… and [t]ry[ing to] get... a job with a cv that only has stuff published on your own website (green)"

      Providing Green OA means publishing in your journal of choice and *also* self-archiving the refereed, accepted final draft online, so it is is accessible not only to subscribers…

      Read more
    7. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Well then if someone provided the software and the hosting for free - and they cost very little - how much would it cost per article to run an e-journal?

      report
    8. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan, I wasn't aware I said anything about Green. I was highlighting the potential problems about the rush to adopt a Gold model. Green, incidentally, still has it's problems, and it's been fully available to scholars since the possibility of on-line repositories emerged. There are obvious reasons why it's not been accepted thus far. They might change. Who knows.

      report
    9. Alex O. Holcombe

      Associate Professor, School of Psychology at University of Sydney

      In reply to Sean Lamb

      As Phillip Dawson alludes to in another comment here, there is free software (Open Journal Systems, you just have to learn how to use it, which takes some work) and it runs hundreds if not thousands of journals around the world. A university (often that of the first chief editor) or a society typically provides the hosting, the marginal cost of which is a drop in a bucket to a university already running a major website.

      report
    10. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Alex O. Holcombe

      But really, I think this is missing the point of my statement that in the AHSS, 'where you publish is often more important than what you publish'. You can just place your stuff on your personal website if you want, there's nothing to stop you. I wouldn't recommend it though at the moment.

      report
    11. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      PROBLEMS?

      Hi Colin,

      Yes, you said nothing about Green in your posting, which was about "the reality of open access" -- which of course includes Green and Gold. That glaring (if not glittering) omission was my first point.

      Yes, Green OA self-archiving has been possible since the advent of the internet. I made my "subversive proposal" to self-archive in 1994. Most researchers didn't act on it. Not because they don't want to provide OA, but because they are afraid of their publishers. We made…

      Read more
    12. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      correction: that should of course have been "... the only exception is the UK's Finch/RCUK mandate, which mandates providing either Green or Gold but "prefers" GOLD (a big mistake..."

      report
    13. Sean Lamb

      Science Denier

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Professor Wight - I accept branding (for want of a better word) to denote quality and gatekeeping to ensure standards are important issues.
      But perhaps only a few peak journals need to have that imprimatur of significance that a print version provides.
      But in science you virtually never read the print versions anymore - although picking up a journal and reading outside your pubmed search terms can be a beneficial experience. So there seems little need to maintain a print apparatus when it represents less than 10% of the eyeballs that actually reads an individual paper.
      Now this may be different of the rarefied world of international relations.

      report
  2. Stephen Mugford

    Sociologist

    What I find interesting—and to a degree worrying—about this piece is the way it seems to be somewhat ‘sealed off’ from wider concerns. Prof Wright talks about publications in terms of costs and benefits to universities and authors but says little about how these same publications might or might not contribute to the wider society. His is a legitimate concern but a narrow one. Ultimately, the point of the exercise is about publishing things that enrich (in a range of senses) the society which supports…

    Read more
    1. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stephen Mugford

      Correct, word limits don't allow wider analysis. Piece is trying to highlight some problems with rush to implement pay-to-publish system.

      report
  3. Phillip Dawson

    Lecturer in Learning and Teaching at Monash University

    I assume it's called 'Gold' open access because paying for it is as expensive as the article's weight in gold.

    It's possible to run an open-access journal for free using open-source platforms, in fact many university institutional repositories can be configured to host journals and manage the peer review process. I established one in 2008 and was lead editor until this year. It's a legitimate journal on the ERA list and nobody pays to read or write. There are some top-tier journals in my field…

    Read more
    1. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Phillip Dawson

      Correct, but profs face pressures too. Unfortunately, the treadmill doesn't stop once you reach a certain level. You are right though, that system change is in our hands, but we have to be aware of the problems first.

      report
  4. Alex O. Holcombe

    Associate Professor, School of Psychology at University of Sydney

    Adopting the UK's policy is indeed a bad idea, certainly for science (I am not as familiar with situation in humanities). Let's lobby Australian agencies to instead follow the US model, embodied for example in NIH policy. The NIH requires authors to make their manuscripts publicly available within 12 months and no fee is incurred in doing so. If the publisher doesn't agree, the author simply can't publish with them. So, no gold required. If it's good enough for US science, why not for Australian?

    report
    1. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Alex O. Holcombe

      Actually, in Aus, that is ARC policy. Problem is, in a global market, Australia can't make policy independent of major publishers and at the moment, to publish the final version (peer reviewed, formatted, PdF, what they call a VoR - version of record, will cost you).

      report
    2. Alex O. Holcombe

      Associate Professor, School of Psychology at University of Sydney

      In reply to Colin Wight

      An important difference between the ARC and NIH policy is that the ARC does not require authors to do it if the publisher says they'd rather not see the article posted. So of course the policy is not very effective, as it is in the publisher's self interest to say "no" and they lose nothing. The NIH policy compels authors and publishers. If the ARC adopted the NIH policy, I doubt that the publishers would say "then sod off, Australian authors, we don't want you" when they already allow the American authors to do this. You could argue that I have an inflated sense of the importance of Australian research and I think you'd be right that Australia perhaps can't chart new territory with the publishers, but here, the publishers are already doing this for the American grant-holders.

      report
  5. Luke Weston

    Physicist / electronic engineer

    Anybody can freely put their own publications up on their own website for the world to freely access.

    However, the reason we continue to pay big money for those subscriptions to Science or Nature* etc is because of their rigorous peer-review, and their reputation, developed over many years, of filtering everything that gets published out there into a digest of high-quality, high-impact content.

    For open access to work, open access journals have to compete with that value that big expensive…

    Read more
    1. Alex O. Holcombe

      Associate Professor, School of Psychology at University of Sydney

      In reply to Luke Weston

      PeerJ and other open access journals typically have peer review that's similarly rigorous to Science and Nature. And an unfortunate side effect of Science and Nature accepting such a small proportion of quality science submitted to them is that many areas of science become littered with false positives (statistical flukes), because only positive results are considered newsworthy. Many negative results are then never published (the file-drawer problem), partly because scientists know they have no…

      Read more
  6. Greg Edeson

    PhD candidate at School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania

    "Under this system the cost of publishing government funded research will be moved from library budgets to research budgets."

    When the rebellion against journal fees erupted into the public sphere, I remember reading a young British academic who had set up a points system for peer review - you build credit within the system by reviewing others' papers, then when you need peer review you don't get charged (I guess an academic's version of couchsurfing or bartercard).

    If the shift to open access saves a lot of money from the library budgets, perhaps this trading is something they could manage/facilitate - they have the networks and overview of a university's information products/areas of expertise, and they'd be better placed than most central offices to keep (make) access to peer review democratic without the very high costs cited in this article.

    report
  7. Danny Kingsley

    Executive Officer for the Australian Open Access Support Group at Australian National University

    Hi Colin,

    It is good to keep the conversation going on this topic.

    You are correct to say: “If the major international publishers adopt a particular approach to open access, then Australian academics and universities are going to have work with that model.” That is the problem with the fallout from the Finch/RCUK changes. Recently we have seen extensions to emabrgo periods from several publishers.

    However unfortunately your response opens up some other myths.

    The first is the myth that…

    Read more
    1. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Danny Kingsley

      Hi Danny, thanks for responding. As you know contributions are limited by the word limits of the publishers, even in this case; well more so in this case, so subtleties not really possible (i'd say the same about your piece..:)) .

      really wanted to do 3 things in my limited 900 words. generate debate/awareness; highlight that AHSS and STEM face different problems; critise the pay-to-publish model. Absolutely impossible to do this comprehensively in 900 words. Having worked as an ed-in-chief of…

      Read more
    2. Gavin Moodie
      Gavin Moodie is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Adjunct professor at RMIT University

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Both these statement in the piece are wrong:

      ‘Given the current budgetary pressures on higher education in Australia, it is sensible to assume this, or something close to it, will be the model adopted by the Australian Research Council (ARC) – one of the main sources of research funding in Australia.’

      ‘Currently ARC policy demands that research funded by them be published in a repository within 12 months.’

      Furthermore, this response repeats the mistaken belief that the only acceptable forms of green open access are an open access journal or a version of record on an institution's repository. Minimally, authors can post on their institution's repository their submitted version or their version changed in the light of referees' comments without breaching publishers' requirements with the rarest exceptions noted on SHERPA/RoMEO

      http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/

      report
    3. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Gavin Moodie

      Wrong in what sense? First, the ARC version, as acknowledged in the ARC statement is consistent with the UK's position (there'e general agreement that the UK pushed a Gold system initially due to pressure from publishers).And why is the second statement you cite wrong? Sorry, I don't genuinely don't understand what's wrong about it. In addition, you can place various version in a repository now. So why isn't it happening and are appointments and promotions committees accepting repository publications…

      Read more
    4. Danny Kingsley

      Executive Officer for the Australian Open Access Support Group at Australian National University

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Colin, let's just define a few words. Authors do not *publish* their work in a repository. They deposit a version of the work that is published elsewhere in order to *disseminate* it to a wider audience. That audience includes not only researchers in less well resourced universities, but also government members wanting information to advise policy development, people in start up innovation companies, practitoners in the field (nurses, teachers, accountants etc), and consumers wanting to follow up…

      Read more
    5. Gavin Moodie
      Gavin Moodie is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Adjunct professor at RMIT University

      In reply to Colin Wight

      1 The ARC has expressed no interest in gold open access and did not adopt gold open access in its open access policy.

      2 The ARC's policy does not 'demand[s] that research funded by them be published in a repository within 12 months'. As is clear from its policy I extracted in another response on this site, the ARC's policy allows for any or no version of an article to be lodged on institutions' repositories, depending on publishers' embargoes.

      On the other points you raise, authors are…

      Read more
    6. Danny Kingsley

      Executive Officer for the Australian Open Access Support Group at Australian National University

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Hi Colin,

      I think the ARC would disagree that they are pushing the gold model. The Version of Researd/Published Version is very rarely the one held in a repository because of copyright issues. The primary content in most repositories is the Accepted Version - the final peer reviewed and corrected version. That is the version the ARC and NHMRC are asking to be deposited.

      The AHA statement is a whole other issue - again fraught with misconceptions and half truths.

      The thing is, this is not…

      Read more
    1. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Anna Daniel

      Hi Anna, agreed, but until that happens can anyone take the risk of publishing in them? You've also had the possibility for a long time to to just place stuff on your personal website, or an institutional repository. I wouldn't recommend it though in many subjects.

      report
    2. Anna Daniel

      Information Policy

      In reply to Colin Wight

      so there's agreement on the urgent need for traditional bodies to recognise the quality of OA journals and 'highly rate' them.

      Fantastic! Does anyone know if steps have been taken towards this?

      e.g. Has anyone matched the ERA Journal list http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2012/era_journal_list.htm with the DOAJ journal list http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=browse&uiLanguage=en to identify OA journals? It's great to see PLOSone in there :-)

      If there's a list of OA journals that are included in the ERA Journal list I'd love to see and circulate it.

      It's unlikely there will be many because the criteria for inclusion is: "were active during the ERA 2012 reference period for research outputs (1 January 2005 – 31 December 2010)." Given the ARC OA policy, how could ERA consider changing that criteria to be inclusive of (recent, digital) OA journals?

      report
    3. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Anna Daniel

      Absolutely without that OA journals can't work. they need general legitimacy and confidence that the outputs are high quality. It may certainly be the case that some OA journals (although without fleshing that out it can cover a lot of things; gold/green/hybrid) already meet that, and that's great but alongside advocacy of OA there needs to be a concerted effort to get them formally recognised. I'm not aware of any list, sorry. Other may know of them. Best thing to do is to check your own subject ERA list, and if good OA ones are not on get your associations to lobby for them. One thing to keep in mind however, is that even though the ERA no longer formally ranks journals, there's still an implicit ranking that goes on within a field of study; we all know these rankings, and we can all probably rank which journals we'd most like to get published in in terms of career advancement.

      report
    4. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Anna Daniel

      OA HAS NO NEED FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS

      The 3rd most widespread canard about OA (after #1 -- "OA means Gold OA" -- and #2 -- "Green OA means self-publishing") is: "OA requires giving more weight to Gold OA journal articles in research evaluation."

      Whatever weight is assigned to an article because of the journal in which it was published should be based solely on the journal's track record for quality standards, not on whether or not it is OA.

      OA does not need double standards, and it's only because of canard #1 and canard #2 that people keep falling into canard #3:

      If you remember that Green OA is as OA (and as good) as Gold and that it's not self-publishing but self-archiving of published journal articles, then you will see that no double standards are needed in order to make any article 100% OA.

      report
    5. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      But you can't archive the VoR for most publishers of the top rated journals without paying the APC or, the paywall fee; in which case, what's open about it?

      report
    6. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      CW wrote: "But you can't archive the VoR for most publishers of the top rated journals without paying the APC or, the paywall fee; in which case, what's open about it?"

      REPLY: The refereed, final draft -- for all users lacking access to the VoR.

      report
    7. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan, yes, but that won't get quoted, it can't as specific page numbers are need. Or, it will get cited but not acknowledged. Do you really think the publishers have not thought abut this. OA will only work once the VoR can be placed in a repository, the rest we've been able to do a for a long time (working papers drafts).

      report
    8. Mark C. Wilson

      Computer Science, University of Auckland

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Oxford U.P. refused to let me do that - there is a 24 month embargo on the postprint, which is unacceptably long. I got around this by uploading to arXiv before I signed the OUP copyright agreement, on advice from the internet.

      Of course, most publishers are more reasonable. Colin is not completely wrong though - it is better to be able to link to the VoR. The difference is pretty small for most journals, though, and I normally don't mind accessing an author version. It does depend on authors making a good effort to make the closest version they can to VoR available, and many authors are not very good at doing this.

      report
    9. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Mark C. Wilson

      Hi Mark, well I agree with that, although I would say that if you want to cite work if far better to do so to the VoR. Your experience with OUP, just confirms some of the problems. Your solution may have worked ok for you, but in my time as Editor we did have examples of papers published on line that met with copyright issues after we accepted them because of the online version.

      report
  8. Gavin Moodie
    Gavin Moodie is a Friend of The Conversation.

    Adjunct professor at RMIT University

    The Australian Research Council's (no date: 3) policy provides that 'There are numerous versions of the manuscript/article that can be made available via the institutional repository. Both the author’s version of the article (Word document) after peer-review, with revisions having been made and the publisher’s version (for example journal version with final pagination and formatting) are acceptable under this policy..

    Furthermore, on the same page the ARC provides: 'If the copyright transfer/licence…

    Read more
  9. rory robertson
    rory robertson is a Friend of The Conversation.

    former fattie

    Professor Wight,

    I think open-access journals are excellent for readers, as long as they are not also "open access" for authors - open access in the sense that authors can publish whatever nonsense they please as scientific fact without the inconvenience of proper quality control.

    I think it was Dr Evil in the movie Austin Powers who claimed with a straight face that his bizarre childhood was "pretty standard really". That claim, however, is more credible than the University of Sydney's claim…

    Read more
    1. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to rory robertson

      I think quality control, or the perception of it, is exactly the issue. can't comment on the specific research you mention as it's not in my field.

      report
    2. rory robertson
      rory robertson is a Friend of The Conversation.

      former fattie

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Professor Wight,

      Thanks for your response but there is no need to be so coy. The paper is not rocket science. All of us who can tell the difference between up and down, between valid and invalid, and who understand the need for facts not fiction to influence important public debates are well-qualified to comment on the notorious Australian Paradox paper.

      In summary, your University of Sydney's highest-profile obesity researchers conclude "a consistent and substantial decline", yet four of…

      Read more
  10. Phillip Dawson

    Lecturer in Learning and Teaching at Monash University

    Just wanted to say thanks to Colin for being so involved in this discussion; it's easier to be hands-off on the comments (I'm guilty of that in my own TC articles sometimes) but much more rewarding for the readers to be able to engage with the author.

    report
  11. Colin Wight

    Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

    just wanted to say thanks to everyone that took the time to comment. we may not agree, but I that's not necessarily the purpose. For the sake of your own sanity and my time I'll just try and group the responses into one reply. Apologies if I miss anyone by doing it this way. just reiterate your comment and I'll try and get back to you; it's called the Conversation after all.

    First Danny, yes I suspect I don't know the literature as well as you, but I think I know the important stuff. My comments…

    Read more
    1. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      SUMMARY & FAREWELL

      Colin, unfortunately you keep missing the most fundamental points. I will summarise, because it is getting rather repetitious, and then leave the converstaion:

      1. A Green journal -- i.e., a journal that endorses immediate, unembargoed self-archiving of the author's final draft -- is not an OA journal, because it does not itself provide OA.

      2. Authors wishing to provide OA can publish in *any* journal; the journal need not be Green.

      3. Authors wishing to comply with…

      Read more
    2. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan, No sorry, but you are wrong. Green OA does not have to be about journals. Check here for the dominant source. And if the VoR is not at issue why are the publishers placing it still behind paywalls? i presume you think they are pretty stupid. Placing an early version of a paper in a repository or personal site has always been possible, so it's not the issue, and as long as VoRs remain behind paywalls or are dependent on APC then OA has achieved nothing irrespective of how you define it., But as you say it's getting repetitive. I'll wait to see how many non-VoR pieces get cited however.

      report
    3. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Hi Colin, I'm not sure what you mean by the "dominant source," but if it has anything to do with OA, I suggest looking at the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), which originally coined the term in 2001-2002:
      http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read

      "For various reasons, this kind of free and unrestricted online availability, which we will call open access, has so far been limited to small portions of the journal literature....

      "The literature that should be freely accessible…

      Read more
    4. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan, by dominant source I simply meant that Suber's work is widely cited on the issues. Obviously that's a judgement call as to whether his work is dominant, and I'm sure you'd have preferred it if I referenced you instead. :)

      I'll ignore the comment about the degree that I'm wrong, or how much I've read about the subject, as I don't think the tone is helpful. Doubtless you think you are right otherwise you wouldn't have made that comment. So we both think we are right, that's why we are…

      Read more
    5. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan, Just some quick comments on this. Much that I don't think we disagree about.

      1. is a technicality that makes no difference. the key point in terms of OA is not simply where the output is available but that it is available and when. To be honest, although you've tried to keep Gold and Green distinct the lines are getting blurred.

      2. yes, whoever said otherwise. The issue however, is not that they can, but whether there are implications/penalties for doing so. Authors are free to publish…

      Read more
    6. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Hi Colin,

      0.0 Peter Suber is the right source (for the fact that OA's primary target is refereed journal articles and why). He's the principal author of the BOAI definition, and that's what I quoted.

      0.1 The Green OA Embargo trend is in the direction opposite to the one you think it is, mostly because of Finch/RCUK (but also in response to the growth in Green OA mandates globally). There are fewer publishers now "on the side of the angels" (no embargo on the refereed final draft), but I'm pleased…

      Read more
  12. Mark C. Wilson

    Computer Science, University of Auckland

    On the offchance that anyone still cares about this thread:

    I am sorry to be negative, but this is a wasted opportunity. The arguments are old and nothing new is presented to buttress them.

    Self-archiving is a temporary measure, to get to the point where libraries can cut subscriptions, driving down prices and killing journals and publishers that don't adapt. Some kind of author-pay scheme for peer review will probably be necessary, and this could be Gold OA. The direct author fees could be…

    Read more
    1. Gavin Moodie
      Gavin Moodie is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Adjunct professor at RMIT University

      In reply to Mark C. Wilson

      I wouldn't assume that journals will last long term. They were established following Gutenberg's invention of printing in 1450 and may die with print. They may be replaced by one of the many other ways in which papers may be grouped into subjects and sorted by quality.

      report
    2. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Gavin Moodie

      WHAT'S IN A NAME?

      All a peer-reviewed journal ever was was (1) an access provider and (2) a peer-review service provider. In the Gutenberg era it had to be both, in the post-Green OA era it will be just the latter.

      The journal title will, as previously, be the certifier of the journal's track record for quality standards ( = peer review standards).

      Access will be maximized and cost will be minimized.

      It's as simple as that.

      report
    3. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan, I'm glad you think it's as simple as that. I think it's a bit/lot more complicated. In a fully post green era, we might wonder whether academic journals will play any role at all. But even if they do, they are still going to have be funded somehow. I'm not sure if you have any editorial experience, but from what I have had the costs of just administering a peer review process are substantial enough and that doesn't includes the vital free labour provided by reviewers and editors. It's not clear to me how those costs are going to come down, although not producing print versions might help.

      report
    4. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Gavin Moodie

      Yes, I think that's a fair assessment. But even so, we have to think about the knock on effects of that for the Learned Societies, monographs and other parts of the academic publishing system.

      report
    5. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Mark C. Wilson

      Thanks Mark. Just so I'm clear, since you accept some sort of pay-to-publish might be the way forward, but also seem to suggest that we should be working towards complete compliance of self-archiving, I'm not seeing any indication of how you think quality will be maintained. I also, didn't feel the need to highlight the self-archiving of post prints, because most of my colleagues are only too aware of these issues, having had to sign many copyright agreements, and getting advice (often too much…

      Read more
    6. Mark C. Wilson

      Computer Science, University of Auckland

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Some of your questions might be answered if you take a look at the following fully peer-reviewed journals: analytic-combinatorics.org, jmlr.org and jocg.org. The OJS software gives proof that costs, not counting the volunteer time of reviewers and editors, can be very, very small.

      I see no reason why essentially all journals in low-funded fields can't be run like that. For higher-funded fields where things move faster, modest (relative to research grants) author charges might be used.

      Of…

      Read more
    7. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Mark C. Wilson

      Hi Mark, might surprise you to learn that I'm technologically ok thanks. And quite a big advocate of it most of the time. So that's not my issue. Again, I don't disagree with the examples of OA journals you supply, the problem is that its a different situation in the AHSS subjects. All of the major national associations relating to these subjects have acknowledged these concerns. So a one size solution won't fit all. As I've said to Stevan, maybe that's their fault, but it's where the are.

      Re…

      Read more
    8. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Mark C. Wilson

      One other thing. What we are really talking about here, in part, is the definition of modest. For a PhD wanting to publish a piece in a prestigious journal in my field a sum of $1000 isn't modest. They can of course, decide not to pay so the piece stays embargoed. Or they can decide to publish in another journal that has no embargo. the latter solution might impact their career prospects given the lack of highly rated Green OA outlets to publish in in my field. The former former solution also disadvantages…

      Read more
    9. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      EDITORIAL EXPERIENCE...

      Hi Colin, as to editorial experience, would you say the nearly a quarter of a century as editor-in-chief of an international, interdisciplinary journal published with a hefty impact factor qualifies me: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/bbs.valedict.html

      As to the funding of post-Green peer-reviewed journal publication, please see below.

      If you don't mind my repeating it: you do seem to be a great deal more ready to opine about OA than to inform yourself about…

      Read more
    10. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan, I'm already aware of the first of those pieces, the second not. Re your editorial experience great, but I'm not sure why I'd be expected to know that. I don't make a habit of googling people I'm discussing issues with, preferring to deal with their statements on the issues at hand. I'm still not sure what you think I've got wrong. Can you clarify that please?

      In the light of these abstracts can I just suggest that you perhaps go back and read my original piece, which is basically…

      Read more
    11. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan. Here is a direct challenge. Go over my original piece and tell me exactly what is wrong on specifics re the rush to implement Gold. Not complaints that I don't deal with Green, because that wasn't the point. Just deal with the actual issues please, that way we might stop talking past each other.

      report
    12. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Incidentally, it took a bit for me to track down, but I wonder if you'd come clean on the long term future you'd like to see. Here's a quote from you that suggests the Green OA is simply a way of getting us to Gold. Based on this, are you advocating Gold as the ultimate goal, with Green simply the transition point?

      "Green OA will have leveraged a transition to Gold OA."

      http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/opinion/the-bottom-line-is-that-journals-cost-money/2004889.article

      report
    13. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Hi Colin,

      A. We agree on the folly of the current Gold rush (Fools Gold)

      B. My criticism was because of the failure to deal with Green in the article (and the misunderstandings of Green in your subsequent replies).

      C. We might also disagree about the viability and desirability of Post-Green Fair-Gold.

      We are not talking past each other, because I am addressing points you have been making in your replies.

      report
    14. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Hi Colin,

      Not sure why you're referring me to this decade-old piece by a publishing consultant in a series to which I myself was also a contributor, but here goes:

      -- No, Open Access is not about taxpayer access, it's primarily about access for all the primary intended users -- researchers -- rather than just subscribers. Tax payer access is just a secondary benefit that comes with the territory.

      -- The remedy for acceptance inflation with Post-Green Fair-Gold will be no-fault peer review…

      Read more
    15. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Falling for Finch at first was not my first piece of stupidity. I do try to make amends, though, once the token drops...

      report
    16. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Dear Colin:

      I couldn't care less about Gold. What I care about is reaching universal OA, now. (It's already over 2 decades overdue.)

      The fastest and surest way to reach 100% OA is for all research institutions to mandate it.

      That's for sure. The rest is speculation. Yes, I believe that universal Green OA will make possible (and indeed force) a transition to Fair Gold. That will solve the journal affordability problem. But the journal affordability problem has never been the one I tried to solve. My target was (and is) always the research accessibility problem. Globally mandated Green OA already solves that one, whether or not it goes on to solve the other problem too. (But one thing is sure: universal Green will make the journal affordability problem no longer a life-and-death matter...)

      report
    17. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan,

      First thanks for the replies. I'm always willing to learn. I think we are much closer on some issues than might appear, but still (possibly?) differ on some. Without knowing exactly what you are specifically objecting to in my replies I can't address them, so it might be best to just leave them there. In terms of me not addressing Green in the article; mea culpa. But I never intended to and instead was simply pointing out what i have previously indicated; the rush towards Gold; the…

      Read more
    18. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      LOL! You have a propensity to make me reply. Anyway, I agree, but think we disagree on a fundamental, and I'm going to put it in terms of a principled objection. The difference between us, and of course you are free to disagree with this assessment, is that I'm advocating for Green (even though it's not mentioned in my piece), but not at any cost, and I want to think through and provide mechanisms and structures to make sure that in implementing Green OA, we don't do more damage than good. You, as I understand your position (and given how much you have invested in this it is understandable) want Green OA at any cost. So LS, monographs, publishers, are going to have to deal with it whatever the cost. I'm not sure that difference can be resolved and readers will have to make up their own minds.

      report
    19. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      EMBARGOING EVOLUTION

      Yes, there is, and has been, a gold rush, gold fever and gold dust. It has not generated much OA, but it has distracted attention and energy from what really can generate 100% OA, and fast, namely: mandating Green OA.

      You had said you thought embargoes did not apply to the author's final draft and that they were diminishing. I replied that they do apply to the author's draft and they are increasing (because of the UK Finch Fiasco but also because of the growth of Green…

      Read more
    20. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      NO-COST GREEN

      Providing Green OA (unlike providing Gold OA) does not cost anything to the author. The cost of publication is already paid (in ful, and fulsomely) by institutional subscriptions.

      If and when Green OA makes subscriptions unsustainable, the much reduced remaining costs of publication (just peer review management) will be paid out of the institutional windfall savings.

      There are also costs to not providing OA: the lost research usage, impact, applications, productivity and progress…

      Read more
    21. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Well I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing now Stevan. But some points. Another problem with the rush to Gold is that the publishers are taking the opportunity to impose APC where possible, but there's no indication that I've seen of subscriptions coming down; so effectively it's simply given them another income stream.

      Re embargoes on final drafts, I think we have to disagree on that. Many of the publishers I'm aware of, under pressure from the OA movements do now allow a post-print version…

      Read more
    22. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Well just to make it clear, the publishers revenues don;t just go into their coffers or pay dividends to shareholds. Academic publishing is a complex interrelated system, and major change in one area of it will have consequences for others. I've mentioned 2 potential ones; LS and the cross-subsidy of monographs, there are probably others. Now another way to look at this, and a valid one, is that the publishing tail has been wagging the research dog for so long, because it throws it some bones and scraps ( funding for LS and cross-subsidising monographs). But if all you've got is bones and scraps, you'll think long and hard before biting your own tail.

      report
    23. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      1. This is a substantive point, Colin, so I urge you to check your facts: It is simply not true that publishers have been diminishing or even holding constant their embargoes on the author's final, refereed, accepted draft. (I am not talking about the VoR, never talked about the VoR, don't care about the VoR; and neither Green OA nor Green OA mandates are about the VoR.) The publisher embargoes have been increasing -- not diminishing, as you have stated repeatedly -- and I've already several times…

      Read more
    24. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      The research dog is fed by research funders, research institutions, and tax-payers, based on and for the sake of research uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress. Research is not fed by bones from its publishing tail. Publishers are becoming more and more like parasites, feeding on their hosts, at the expense of the potential for enhanced research uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress in the online era.

      report
    25. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Hi Stevan, you keep insisting on that point, but if you are right about that that then it's tantamount to arguing that the OA movement has made matters worse in terms of its aims not better. Maybe it's an instance of where we are talking past each other, but let me put it this way. 2012 was a watershed in terms of OA to me. By embargo I'm referring to the period publishers kept pieces hidden behind pay walls, prior to recent moves by RCs this period could be decades. Now it's, at least for the major…

      Read more
    26. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      This s not in doubt Stevan, by anyone, but you've simply avoided my point about how some of that funding supports LS and monograph publication. I think it's pretty clear why that is the case. As, to repeat, you want OA irrespective of any knock on effects of elsewhere in the system. So if the LS go, they go. And if some authors, new PHDs perhaps, find their projects too niche to get published that's also a cost you are prepared to pay. That's fine and it's a principled position, but not one, I and many others share. Of course, I accept that I and all the others doubters are just 'wrong'. :)

      report
    27. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      BASICS

      CW: "you keep insisting on that point [publisher embargoes growing rather than shrinking]"

      Only because it happens to be true...

      CW: "but if you are right about that then it's tantamount to arguing that the OA movement has made matters worse in terms of its aims not better"

      Nothing of the sort. OA Mandates are generating a lot more OA. The publisher OA mandates are attempts to slow those gains. The immediate-deposit mandate plus the eprint-request Button moots publisher embargoes…

      Read more
    28. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      SH: The reference point is not 20 years ago but 10 years ago (when publishers first began endorsing immediate, unembargoed Green OA). Here are some of the publishers that have since reneged: Springer, Elsevier, Wiley/Blackwell, Nature/Macmillan, the Royal Society: http://j.mp/13vnYpI

      10 years to you, glad you have such certainty. Plus some of your statements are contradictory. OA has improved things; Things have got worse. Be good is consistency were part of the framework.

      SH: Non-issues…

      Read more
    29. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      BASICS II

      "CW: "you've simply avoided my point about how some of that funding [from Scholarly Society journal publication revenues] supports [Scholarly Society and monograph publication."

      I have already replied to that point many times:

      There are other ways to fund Scholarly Societies' "good works" (meetings, scholarships and lobbying) than by blocking scholarly access to scholarly journal articles.

      CW: "you want OA irrespective of any knock on effects of elsewhere in the system. So…

      Read more
    30. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Well I'm sure you 'think' you've replied, but not satisfactorily for me. And if we are being pedantic, mostly LS don't publish anything but receive money from publishers for the publishers to publish the journals. And yes they can get the money from elsewhere (maybe not so easy in the AHSS), but don't assume there won't be consequences to that. Also, if the much vaunted 'Button" (do you have any relationship to e-prints btw?) is the answer, why are you so concerned about the embargoes? Just let the…

      Read more
    31. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Incidentally, one last thing re the 'Button'. If I'm teaching a course to 500+ first year students and schedule a piece of yours for them to read, you'll personally deal with all those email requests will you? Really, it's fools gold to think that publishing and access to it has no 'costs' (broadly understood) beyond it's monetary production.

      report
    32. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Colin Wight

      Incidentally, the Royal Society Green OA policy is here:

      http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/open_access.xhtml

      And some reading for you saying much the same that I'm saying, not that it'll convince you but it might help some readers pick through the issues.

      http://occamstypewriter.org/scurry/2013/02/27/royal-society-meeting-on-open-access-in-the-uk-what-willetts-wants/

      report
    33. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      "The transition needs to be gradual; if it isn't the situation will be destabilised. BioMed is already largely Gold OA but, in Humanities and Social Science (HSS), Gold OA is a small fraction. Disciplines will move at different speeds to achieve change. It is important that HSS are not harmed by the transition and that the quality of reseach and publications are not undermined; however, it is also important, they are not left out of the changes. Dame Janet hoped that the conference would help encourage…

      Read more
    34. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      READ THE ACCESSIBLE VERSION: CITE THE VERSION OF RECORD

      [Responding to substantive points only. Skipping the substance-free ho-hom ad-hom retorts…]

      CW: "How can you cite specific pages to the VoR if you can't access it without paying?"

      1. The premise for this question is that the would-be citer does not have institutional subscription access.

      2. Read the OA version and cite the VoR, giving section-heading and paragraph number instead of page number.

      3. Or, if you page numbers are demanded by copy-editor, go to a library and find the VoR (email the author to ask for the pp for the quote).

      OA is mostly about providing access to all potential users, instead of just subscribers. The author's refereed draft is sufficient for that. When it comes to quoting and citing the accessed work in a publication of one's own, there are very simple and obvious solutions like the above.

      report
    35. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Good: about only responding to substantive points.

      Thanks for the shouting, but that's a frankly silly, yes let me repeat, silly response:

      "READ THE ACCESSIBLE VERSION: CITE THE VERSION OF RECORD'."

      Why? Why is that silly? As if it needs pointing out, but hey....let me do it anyway. If that's the case, what has OA achieved.....? NOTHING. Yes that's me shouting back. As you point out yourself, it assumes that in order to cite if you have institutional 'SUBSCRIPTION' access. Let me say that…

      Read more
    36. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      FULL DISCLOSURE

      [Responding to substantive points only. Skipping the substance-free ho-hom ad-hom retorts…]

      CW: "if the much vaunted 'Button"… is the answer, why are you so concerned about the embargoes?"

      The eprint-request Button is the answer to tthe following wo problems:

      (1) How to access embargoed research if you don't have a subscription?

      (2) How are all funders and institutions to mandate immediate-deposit, without opt-out, rather than just deposit after the publisher-embargo…

      Read more
    37. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      COURSE PACKS

      [Responding to substantive points only. Skipping the substance-free ho-hom ad-hom retorts…]

      CW: "one last thing re the 'Button'. If I'm teaching a course to 500+ first year students and schedule a piece of yours for them to read, you'll personally deal with all those email requests will you?"

      Try me!

      report
    38. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      THE TRANSITION TO THE OPTIMAL AND INVITABLE

      CW: "[quoting] 'It is important that HSS are not harmed by the transition and that the quality of research and publications are not undermined'"

      The quality of research is sustained by peer review, whether the peer review (and a lot of other obsolescent products and services that are currently co-bundled and co-charged with it) is covered via subscriptions, as now, or via peer-review service charges (i.e., Fair-Gold OA) paid for out of the subscription cancelation windfall savings -- as will happen after Green OA has prevailed globally.

      The last 20 years of publisher FUD about potential "harm" to research quality (as opposed to just their revenue quantity) has succeeded in retarding the transition to the optimal and inevitable long enough. Worldwide immediate-deposit mandates can and will now put an end to that shameful and gratuitous delay at long last.

      report
    39. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Well, now we are getting somewhere, because at last you are admitting that the solution you are proposing is not yet full OA. Thanks for the info re e-prints btw.

      But, I still think you are:

      1) Being far too sanguine about the he potential effects on LS. But then you've made clear that your commitment to OA overrides any considerations about them. I have to say, and I don't need to read more to make this point, but, you seem to have a very atomistic view of these issues and don't seem to acknowledge…

      Read more
    40. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Oh don't tempt me, but seriously is it a good solution? As for course packs. Actually that might work, but then again, I'm trying to train my students in good academic practices so I'll need them to access the VoR, so they can cite page numbers etc......Oh, let me think about that, they'll need an institutional subscription for that. Damn, back to where we are now.

      report
    41. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Ok, well, it looks like the petty slights and calls to read more have gone now, so I'll reciprocate. Look Stevan, I'm opposed on principle to the idea of 'fair gold'. I'll only be happy with a well thought out Green that has clear answers to LS issues and clear structures to protect niche monographs; I don't know yet what the answers to those questions are. But any version of Gold, which essentially moves from a pay-to-read (subscriptions) to pay-to-publish version I'm against. I actually think it's naive to think any such system could be 'fair' in any meaningful sense of the word. But then I'm in a discipline that see power everywhere and is concerned with social inequalities. Maybe you think think 'fair gold' will deal with those concerns, but irrespective of anything I've read about OA I've never come across a 'fair' social system anywhere. Just why do you think we'll suddenly be able to create one?

      report
    42. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Incidentally, that is my final comment. We aren't getting anywhere, but that doesn't mean I'm not prepared to continue debate. Email me if you want further responses from me, or just post here if you want to simply keep restating your views.

      report
    43. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      COMMENTARY TITLE: NOT SHOUTING

      [Responding to substantive points only. Skipping the substance-free ho-hom ad-hom retorts…]

      Capitalization is the remedy for providing a title for a posting when boldface is not made available by the blog software. (Emphasis in text body is with _…_ or *…*)

      CW: "what has OA achieved.....?

      30-40% access (so far) for all those who lack subscription access. Once mandates prevail, 100%.

      CW: "'Assumes you have institutional subscription access'. Your words…

      Read more
    44. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Or to put it another way, your response accuses me of assuming that the citer does NOt have institutional access and you are saying this is wrong because they will. You'll need to VoR to cite, the publishers are counting on this; unless you are going to completely change academic practices.

      report
    45. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      MONOGRAPHS

      CW: "journal profits subsidize monographs"

      1. Journal subscriptions (and inflated prices) use up library funds that could have been spent purchasing more monographs. (The "serials crisis.")

      2. Post-Green Fair-Gold OA releases most of those funds.

      3. Publishers (including prestigious ones) will increasingly publish niche monographs digitally only (making monographs much cheaper, though not necessarily OA)

      report
    46. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Stevan Harnad

      Incidentally Stevan, one final, final point from me. You know that crystal ball you have that seems to let you know just exactly how the future is going to unfold, any chance you can share it with the rest of us?

      report
    47. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      See response above entitled "Read the Accessible Version: Cite the Version of Record". Use section heading and paragraph numbers to quote. (Or, if you have no access to the VoR and are publishing in a journal with a copy-editor who is a pedant with refusal rights, you're out of luck for now if you quote -- but not if you just cite...)

      report
    48. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      CW: "do you have any idea of how many academics won't even read essays digitally let alone books?"

      They'll learn...

      report
    49. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      CW: "that crystal ball you have that seems to let you know just exactly how the future is going to unfold, any chance you can share it with the rest of us?"

      Papers (from 1989): http://j.mp/CrystalBallX

      AmSci Forum (from 1998): http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/author.html
      +
      http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html

      Blogs (from 2005): http://openaccess.eprints.org

      GOAL (from 2012): http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/

      report
  13. Vanessa Barrett

    Digital Services Librarian

    I have been surprised that no comment has been made on the following statement by Colin Wight
    "Under a “gold” scheme, authors pay Article Processing Charges (APCs) to have their papers peer reviewed, edited and made freely available"
    In fact, as acknowledged elsewhere in the comments, peer review and most editorial work is carried out for no fee by other academics. So the APC is in fact mostly just to make the article "Freely available". This can of course be achieved without fees at all by deposit of the Accepted version of the paper.

    report
    1. Colin Wight

      Professor of International Relations at University of Sydney

      In reply to Vanessa Barrett

      Thanks for the comment Vanessa. As a librarian, you'll be aware of what APCs are said to cover, but in case not here are some links, and one for people doubting the the actual costs:

      http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/apcfaq/whatdoesitcover
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC317385/
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22673/abstracthttp://aipadvances.aip.org/authors/apc

      You'll notice that most, if not all, of them claim that APCs cover the costs of the editorial process…

      Read more
    1. Stevan Harnad

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Colin Wight

      SIMPLE WAY TO MAKE UC OA MANDATE WORK

      Aside from the default copyright-reservation mandate with opt-out, always add an immediate-deposit clause without opt-out: http://j.mp/19EkaX5

      The deposit need not be immediately made OA, but it needs to be deposited in the institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication. While access to the deposit is embargoed, the repository can implement the eprint-request Button with which users can request and authors can provide the eprint with one click each: https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy

      report