Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] More Finch Fallout: The Royal Society's Fall From Immediate, Unembargoed Green

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:57:27 -0400

Threading: [BOAI] More Finch Fallout: "The Royal Society welcomes leading institutions to its Open Access Membership Programme" from amsciforum AT
      • This Message

On 2013-07-18, at 7:39 AM, Marianne Haska <marianne.haska AT> wrote:

> Replies below from a much objective Graham Triggs to Stephen Harnad

I've already replied to the much more objective Graham Triggs:

But can representatives of the Royal Society not speak for themselves? 

And I'm not referring to the RS's hybrid Gold option -- which is not, as I 
said, the 
relevant criterion for deciding whether the RS is being "fair" -- but 
to the RS's fall 
from its prior (2010) policy of endorsing immediate, unembargoed Green OA 
self-archiving by its authors:

Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society (24 November 2005)

Royal Society Endorses Immediate Green OA Self-Archiving By Its Authors (22 
June 2010)

Stevan Harnad

> On Tuesday, 16 July 2013 03:07:58 UTC+2, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM, LIBLICENSE <libli... AT> 
> "Remaining a fair player, The Royal Society ensures that published 
open access articles bearing a publication fee are deducted from subscription 
prices through its Transparent Pricing Mechanism"
> The Royal Society thereby pledges that it will not "double-dip" 
for hybrid Gold OA. The RS continues to collect subscription fees from 
institutions worldwide, but whatever additional revenue if gets from individual 
authors for hybrid Gold OA, it pledges to return as a subscription rebate to 
all subscribing institutions. 
> But does this mean the RS is a "fair player" insofar as OA is 
> Hardly. 
> Actually, whilst there is an increase in the number of non-OA articles, 
this is more than fair (assuming that the current subscription rate is fair, 
and their costs are in line with inflation). It's not quite so fair in the case 
that the number of non-OA publications is decreasing.
> Yet this is not because the hybrid Gold OA rebate amounts to individual 
authors' full payments for Gold OA subsidizing the subscription costs of 
institutions worldwide. (The author's own institution only gets back a tiny 
fraction of its authors' Gold OA fee in its tiny portion of the worldwide 
subscription rebate.)
> No. Whether the RS is indeed a fair player depends on whether RS authors 
have the choice -- between providing Gold OA by paying the RS that additional 
cost over and above what the world's institutions are already paying the RS in 
subscriptions -- or providing Green OA at no additional cost, by self-archiving 
their article free for all online.
> There are no rebates due for Gold OA publishing. It is not subsidizing the 
subscription costs worldwide. Author-paid content, and subscription-paid 
content are separate things, and the revenue is (in this case) being counted 
separately. You (or rather, your funder gives you extra to) pay for what you 
want to make open. And you pay for what isn't open if you want to read it.
> Very simply - if, instead of publishing with the Royal Society, you 
published your open article (and paid the APC) in PLoS, would you expect a 
rebate on your Royal Society subscription, which would still be covering 
*exactly* the same amount of closed access content?
> But now -- perhaps -- the RS seems to have adopted a 12-month embargo on 
Green OA (under the fell influence -- perhaps -- of the new Finch/RCUK OA 
> "You are free to post…the “Author Generated Postprint” - Your 
personal copy of the revised version of the Article as accepted by Us… on Your 
personal or institutional web site and load it onto an institutional or not for 
profit repository no earlier than 12 months from the date of first publication 
of the Definitive Published Version."
> Or is this just another (silly) attempt to distinguish between authors 
positing on their "institutional website" (unembargoed) versus 
posting in their "institutional repository" (embargoed) -- in which 
case RS authors can happily ignore this empty pseudo-distinction, knowing that 
their institutional repository is indeed their institutional website.
> No, according to that resource they have exactly the same policy that 
covers loading / depositing the postprint to any online resource - personal 
website, institutional website ore repository. The only distinction they make 
is that you can use the postprint internally, or email to colleagues without 
embargo. All online / systematic distribution is limited by the embargo period.

ATTACHMENT: message.html!

-- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail: .