Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] More Finch Fallout: The Royal Society's Fall From Immediate, Unembargoed Green
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On 2013-07-18, at 7:39 AM, Marianne Haska <marianne.haska AT ↵ royalsociety.org> wrote: > Replies below from a much objective Graham Triggs to Stephen Harnad I've already replied to the much more objective Graham Triggs: ↵ http://j.mp/RepTriggs 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 gmail.com> ↵ wrote > > "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" > ↵ http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/transparent_pricing.xhtml" > > 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 ↵ concerned? > > 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 ↵ policy?): > > "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." ↵ http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/licence.xhtml > > 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. >
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org .