|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive [BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]boaiforum messages[BOAI] Finch II: "Our Mind's Made Up: Don't Confuse Us With Facts"From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
--047d7bb0435c3b315d04eb6b6557
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
*Finch Report II: A Review of Progress in Implementing the Recommendations
of the Finch Report ("Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to
Expand Access to Research Publications")*
"*Our review is based on a rigorous analysis of evidence from a wide range
of sources*."
Hardly. The Finch II review is in fact a very selective re-hash of opinions
and opinion-surveys, with nothing faintly resembling the objective evidence
called for by the BIS Select
Committee.<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Co=
mmittee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html>
This exceedingly long, rambling, incoherent new Finch report has very
little that is new or substantive; it is mostly vague, self-congratulatory
sloganeering. But its thrust is clear: Despite all the objections and
counter-evidence to Finch I, and despite the very trenchant and specific
critique and recommendations of the BIS Select Committee, Finch II is
simply digging in its heels and sticking to what it said in Finch I.
This is clearly the result of remarkably successful lobbying by the UK
journal publishing industry (aided and abetted by a small fervent minority
of OA ↵
advocates<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%=
20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3D=
UTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&h=
l=3Den&lr=3D&q=3D%22re-use%22+OR+CC-BY+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.ep=
rints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbas=3D0&tbm=3Dblg>
who
consider free online access insufficient, and insist on paying extra for a
CC-BY license that allows re-use, text-mining, re-mixing and
re-publication) -- plus a good deal of woolly-mindedness (and perhaps some
pig-headedness too) in the Finch Committee and its advisors (e.g., the Well=
come
Trust<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%2=
0OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=
=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=
=3D&q=3DWellcome+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=3Dac=
tive&tbm=3Dblg>
).
The most important amendment grudgingly admitted by Finch II is that UK
researchers are now free to choose between providing OA via the Green route
(of publishing articles in any journal at all, by making the article OA in
a repository after any allowable publisher embargo has expired) or via the
Gold route (by paying the publisher [pure Gold or hybrid] to make the
article OA immediately [with a CC-BY license]).
I will not rehearse
again<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%2=
0OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=
=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=
=3D&q=3D(fiasco+OR+waste+OR+double-pay)+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.e=
prints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg>
the
many reasons why paying for Gold OA is a waste of UK public funds,
double-paying arbitrarily inflated "Fool's
Gold<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20=
OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=
=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=
=3D&q=3D%22fool's+gold%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&sa=
fe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg>"
fees to publishers for the UK's outgoing 6% of worldwide research, over and
above paying subscription fees to publishers for all incoming research. The
fact is that Finch has now conceded that researchers are free to choose
whether or not to pay for Gold, so UK researchers need not waste money on
Fool's Gold unless they wish to. Author choice is restored.
Moreover, Green OA embargo length limits will not be enforced for at least
two years (Finch/RCUK are instead focussing all their attention on
montoring how the Gold funds is being spent).
And Finch II also seems to have grudgingly conceded that the parallel HEFCE
addendum<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harna=
d%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&t=
bm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&=
lr=3D&q=3Dhefce+immediate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&sa=
fe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg>
--
requiring that in order to be eligible for REF2020, all articles must be
deposited in the author's institutional repository immediately upon
publlication (not after an embargo, nor just before REF2020) -- is likely
to be adopted.
This concession should not have been grudging, because the HEFCE/REF
addendum in fact provides the crucial missing component that will make the
Finch/RCUK mandate succeed, despite Finch's preference for Fool's Gold: It
provides the all-important mechanism for monitoring and ensuring timely
compliance, by recruiting institutions (ever ready to do anything they
possibly can to increase their chances of success in REF) to ensure that
deposit is immediate, even if OA is embargoed. (During any embargo the
institutonal repositories also have the automated copy-request
Button<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%=
20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=
=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=
=3D&q=3Dbutton+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=3Dactive&tbas=3D=
0&tbm=3Dblg>,
which enables users to request and authors to provide individual copies for
research purposes with just one click each.)
Finch II nevertheless continues to crow about the Finch Policy serving as a
beacon for the rest of the world:
"*It is clear also that our 2012 Report and the subsequent policy
developments have proved a catalyst for activity not only in the UK, but
internationally*."
In point of fact, apart from the UK, the only other country with a
Finch-like preference for Gold is the Netherlands, as has just been
announced<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1073-The-Journa=
l-Publisher-Lobby-in-the-UK-Netherlands-Part-I.html>,
almost simultaneously with the Finch II. It is no coincidence, of course,
that the UK and the Netherlands are the hosts of the world's largest
journal fleet publishers, who have been feverishly lobbying worldwide
against mandating Green and for funding Gold. The lobbying has had no
success anywhere else on the planet, which now has over 80 funder OA
mandates and over 200 institutional OA mandates, all of which are
Green<http://roarmap.eprints.org/>,
except for the UK. (The Netherlands has not mandated OA at all, but
threatens to emulate the Finch/RCUK preferential-Gold in 2 years if there
is not enough voluntary response.)
So, no news from Finch II, but promising prospects for a HEFCE/REF
immediate-deposit requirement that will make the Finch/RCUK Green option
succeed.
There are some telling signs, however, of just how fully Finch is in the
thrall of the publisher lobby: Open Access is about access to research, yet
Finch keeps referring to a "mixed economy" and a ↵
"transition," as if OA
were about publishers' business models, hence about publishing economics,
rather than about research access and impact, and as if the goal were Gold
OA, rather than OA itself:
"*We hold to the view that a transition via a mixed economy to Gold OA,
where publication costs are met mainly by the payment of [Gold OA fees], is
the most effective way of balancing our [sic] objectives of increased
access, sustainability and excellence*."
This is also a good point to look more closely at "our"
"sustainability<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%=
20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3D=
UTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&h=
l=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dsustainable+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F=
&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg>"
objective: What is it that "we" must be be careful to sustain, in the
transition to OA: peer-reviewed research? or publishers' current revenue
streams?
And who is to determine the terms and timetable for the transition to OA?
The research community? or whatever (and however long) it takes to sustain
publishers' current revenue streams?
Finch seems to have accepted wholesale that publishers are justified in
embargoing Green OA in order to sustain their current subscription revenues
-- and that the UK (double-) paying publishers' asking-price for Gold OA
(as determined by whatever it takes to sustain their current revenue
levels) is the fastest and fairest way to make a transition to 100% OA. But
what is in reality being sustained here is *publishers' current revenue
levels*, not peer-reviewed research itself. And publisher embargoes on
Green OA are being used to hold back the "transition" timetable for ↵
as long
as it takes till publishers' terms are met ("*a transition to open access
(OA) over an extended period that would be characterised by a mixed economy=
*
").
To illustrate how fully Finch has identified itself with publishers'
interests and their attempts to hold OA hostage to publishers embargoes and
agenda:
"*We cannot agree=85 with those who urge policies based solely on Green OA
with short or zero embargoes, a position which derives from an exclusive
preference for Green OA, rather than a mixed economy. There is a balance to
be struck between embargo lengths that provide speedy access on the one
hand, and sustainability for subscription-based journals and the business
models that underpin them on the other*."
Finch II has internalized without reflection -- as if it were a law of
nature, rather than merely a publisher-imposed, self-fulfilling prophecy --
the canard that *Gold OA means immediate OA* and *Green OA means
delayed OA* (delayed
because publishers embargo it!): The two options are accordingly defined by
Finch II as:
"*immediate free access to publications with the costs met by [Gold OA
fees], often referred to as Gold OA=85 or free access via repositories afte=
r
appropriate embargo periods, often referred to as Green OA*."
In point of fact, over 60% of subscription
journals<http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php>
do *not* embargo Green OA (though Finch certainly seems to be doing its
level best to give them the incentive to do so!).
Finch II has also re-affirmed its support for negotiating a Really Big Deal
-- an extended national license scheme to "sustain" subscription ↵
access
during the "mixed economy" transition. Translation: Publishers will ↵
have
their dream of being paid a still bigger UK national license fee for all
incoming subscription content, over and above the Finch funds to be paid
them for (Fool's) Gold OA. The UK here will be complying in a fantasy
beyond publishers' wildest dreams=85
Finch II also proposes to
"*monitor the impact of OA policies on learned societies... [because they]
start from different positions in engaging with the transition to OA*."
The only relevant question is whether Learned Society
publishers<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Har=
nad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8=
&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3De=
n&lr=3D&q=3D(%22learned+society%22+OR+%22scholarly+society%22)+blogurl%3Aht=
tp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbas=3D0&tbm=3Dblg>
are
any more justified than commercial publishers in embargoing access to
Learned Research in order to "sustain" their current revenue streams. ↵
Apart
from that, post-Green Fair-Gold publishing will be as open to Learned
Society publishers as to commercial publishers, if and when globally
mandated Green makes subscriptions unsustainable. Whatever Learned Society
publishing revenues were supporting "good
works<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%2=
0OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=
=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=
=3D&q=3D%22good+works%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&saf=
e=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg>"
such as meetings and scholarships can then fund themselves (via membership
dues and registration fees) instead of being subsidized by lost Learned
Research impact.
Finch II closes with:
"*Our key recommendation is=85 to develop an interoperable system of
repositories and an infrastructure that supports both Gold and Green OA*."
We can all applaud that, thanks to HEFCE/REF. The requisite infrastructure
will be the interoperable system of Green OA repositories, with
immediate-deposit mandated for all refereed research output, Gold and
Green, with or without embargoes, and with or without CC-BY.
--047d7bb0435c3b315d04eb6b6557
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><blockquote ↵
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verda=
na,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><b>Finch Report II: ↵
A Review =
of Progress in Implementing the Recommendations of the Finch Report ↵
("=
Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to Expand Access to Research=
Publications")</b><br>
<br><blockquote>"<em>Our review is based on a ↵
rigorous analysis of evi=
dence from a wide range of ↵
sources</em>."</blockquote>Hardly. The Finc=
h II review is in fact a very selective re-hash of opinions and opinion-sur=
veys, with nothing faintly resembling the objective evidence called for by =
the=A0<a ↵
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-=
BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html" ↵
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)=
">BIS Select Committee.</a>=A0<br>
<br>This exceedingly long, rambling, incoherent new Finch report has very ↵
l=
ittle that is new or substantive; it is mostly vague, self-congratulatory s=
loganeering. But its thrust is clear: Despite all the objections and counte=
r-evidence to Finch I, and despite the very trenchant and specific critique=
and recommendations of the BIS Select Committee, Finch II is simply diggin=
g in its heels and sticking to what it said in Finch I.=A0<br>
<br>This is clearly the result of remarkably successful lobbying by the ↵
UK =
journal publishing industry (aided and abetted by a=A0<a ↵
href=3D"https://ww=
w.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20ar=
chivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=
=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2cof=
f=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3D%22re-use%22+OR+CC-BY+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A=
%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbas=3D0&tbm=3Dbl=
g" style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">small fervent minority of OA ↵
advocates</a>=
=A0who consider free online access insufficient, and insist on paying extra=
for a CC-BY license that allows re-use, text-mining, re-mixing and re-publ=
ication) -- plus a good deal of woolly-mindedness (and perhaps some pig-hea=
dedness too) in the Finch Committee and its advisors (e.g., the=A0<a href=
=3D"https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Ha=
rnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3D=
UTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=
=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3DWellcome+blogurl%3Ahttp%=
3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg" ↵
style=3D=
"color:rgb(0,51,102)">Wellcome Trust</a>).<br>
<br>The most important amendment grudgingly admitted by Finch II is that ↵
UK=
researchers are now free to choose between providing OA via the Green rout=
e (of publishing articles in any journal at all, by making the article OA i=
n a repository after any allowable publisher embargo has expired) or via th=
e Gold route (by paying the publisher [pure Gold or hybrid] to make the art=
icle OA immediately [with a CC-BY license]).<br>
<br>I will not=A0<a ↵
href=3D"https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&=
amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openacces=
s.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&a=
mp;c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3D(f=
iasco+OR+waste+OR+double-pay)+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org=
%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg" ↵
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">rehearse=
again</a>=A0the many reasons why paying for Gold OA is a waste of UK ↵
publi=
c funds, double-paying arbitrarily inflated "<a ↵
href=3D"https://www.go=
ogle.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archiv=
angelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dbl=
g&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1=
&hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3D%22fool's+gold%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fo=
penaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg" ↵
style=3D"color:rg=
b(0,51,102)">Fool's Gold</a>" fees to publishers ↵
for the UK's =
outgoing 6% of worldwide research, over and above paying subscription fees =
to publishers for all incoming research. The fact is that Finch has now con=
ceded that researchers are free to choose whether or not to pay for Gold, s=
o UK researchers need not waste money on Fool's Gold unless they wish ↵
t=
o. Author choice is restored.=A0<br>
<br>Moreover, Green OA embargo length limits will not be enforced for at ↵
le=
ast two years (Finch/RCUK are instead focussing all their attention on mont=
oring how the Gold funds is being spent).<br><br>And Finch II also ↵
seems to=
have grudgingly conceded that the parallel=A0<a ↵
href=3D"https://www.google=
.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivange=
lism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&am=
p;tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&=
;hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dhefce+immediate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.=
eprints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg" ↵
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102=
)">HEFCE addendum</a>=A0-- requiring that in order to be eligible ↵
for REF20=
20, all articles must be deposited in the author's institutional ↵
reposi=
tory immediately upon publlication (not after an embargo, nor just before R=
EF2020) -- is likely to be adopted.<br>
<br>This concession should not have been grudging, because the HEFCE/REF ↵
ad=
dendum in fact provides the crucial missing component that will make the Fi=
nch/RCUK mandate succeed, despite Finch's preference for Fool's ↵
Gol=
d: It provides the all-important mechanism for monitoring and ensuring time=
ly compliance, by recruiting institutions (ever ready to do anything they p=
ossibly can to increase their chances of success in REF) to ensure that dep=
osit is immediate, even if OA is embargoed. (During any embargo the institu=
tonal repositories also have the automated=A0<a ↵
href=3D"https://www.google.=
ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangel=
ism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&=
;tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&=
hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dbutton+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&=
;safe=3Dactive&tbas=3D0&tbm=3Dblg" ↵
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">co=
py-request Button</a>, which enables users to request and authors to ↵
provid=
e individual copies for research purposes with just one click each.)<br>
<br>Finch II nevertheless continues to crow about the Finch Policy ↵
serving =
as a beacon for the rest of the world:<blockquote>"<em>It ↵
is clear als=
o that our 2012 Report and the subsequent policy developments have proved a=
catalyst for activity not only in the UK, but ↵
internationally</em>."<=
/blockquote>
In point of fact, apart from the UK, the only other country with a Finch-li=
ke preference for Gold is the Netherlands, as has=A0<a ↵
href=3D"http://opena=
ccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1073-The-Journal-Publisher-Lobby-in-t=
he-UK-Netherlands-Part-I.html" ↵
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">just been anno=
unced</a>, almost simultaneously with the Finch II. It is no coincidence, ↵
o=
f course, that the UK and the Netherlands are the hosts of the world's ↵
=
largest journal fleet publishers, who have been feverishly lobbying worldwi=
de against mandating Green and for funding Gold. The lobbying has had no su=
ccess anywhere else on the planet, which now has over 80 funder OA mandates=
and over 200 institutional OA mandates,=A0<a ↵
href=3D"http://roarmap.eprint=
s.org/" style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">all of which are ↵
Green</a>, except fo=
r the UK. (The Netherlands has not mandated OA at all, but threatens to emu=
late the Finch/RCUK preferential-Gold in 2 years if there is not enough vol=
untary response.)<br>
<br>So, no news from Finch II, but promising prospects for a HEFCE/REF ↵
imme=
diate-deposit requirement that will make the Finch/RCUK Green option succee=
d.<br><br>There are some telling signs, however, of just how fully ↵
Finch is=
in the thrall of the publisher lobby: Open Access is about access to resea=
rch, yet Finch keeps referring to a "mixed economy" and a ↵
"t=
ransition," as if OA were about publishers' business models, ↵
hence=
about publishing economics, rather than about research access and impact, =
and as if the goal were Gold OA, rather than OA itself:<blockquote>
"<em>We hold to the view that a transition via a mixed economy ↵
to Gold=
OA, where publication costs are met mainly by the payment of [Gold OA fees=
], is the most effective way of balancing our [sic] objectives of increased=
access, sustainability and excellence</em>."</blockquote>
This is also a good point to look more closely at "our" ↵
"<a =
href=3D"https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%=
20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&i=
e=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&sa=
fe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dsustainable+blogurl:ht=
tp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg" style=
=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">sustainability</a>" ↵
objective: What is it tha=
t "we" must be be careful to sustain, in the transition to ↵
OA: pe=
er-reviewed research? or publishers' current revenue streams?<br>
<br>And who is to determine the terms and timetable for the transition to ↵
O=
A? The research community? or whatever (and however long) it takes to susta=
in publishers' current revenue streams?=A0<br><br>Finch ↵
seems to have a=
ccepted wholesale that publishers are justified in embargoing Green OA in o=
rder to sustain their current subscription revenues -- and that the UK (dou=
ble-) paying publishers' asking-price for Gold OA (as determined by ↵
wha=
tever it takes to sustain their current revenue levels) is the fastest and =
fairest way to make a transition to 100% OA. But what is in reality being s=
ustained here is=A0<em>publishers' current revenue ↵
levels</em>, not pee=
r-reviewed research itself. And publisher embargoes on Green OA are being u=
sed to hold back the "transition" timetable for as long as it ↵
tak=
es till publishers' terms are met ("<em>a transition to ↵
open acces=
s (OA) over an extended period that would be characterised by a mixed econo=
my</em>").<br>
<br>To illustrate how fully Finch has identified itself with ↵
publishers'=
; interests and their attempts to hold OA hostage to publishers embargoes a=
nd agenda:<blockquote>"<em>We cannot agree=85 with those ↵
who urge poli=
cies based solely on Green OA with short or zero embargoes, a position whic=
h derives from an exclusive preference for Green OA, rather than a mixed ec=
onomy. There is a balance to be struck between embargo lengths that provide=
speedy access on the one hand, and sustainability for subscription-based j=
ournals and the business models that underpin them on the ↵
other</em>."=
</blockquote>
Finch II has internalized without reflection -- as if it were a law of natu=
re, rather than merely a publisher-imposed, self-fulfilling prophecy -- the=
canard that=A0<em>Gold OA means immediate ↵
OA</em>=A0and=A0<em>Green OA mea=
ns delayed OA</em>=A0(delayed because publishers embargo it!): The two ↵
opti=
ons are accordingly defined by Finch II as:<blockquote>
"<em>immediate free access to publications with the costs met by ↵
[Gold=
OA fees], often referred to as Gold OA=85 or free access via repositories =
after appropriate embargo periods, often referred to as Green ↵
OA</em>."=
;</blockquote>
In point of fact,=A0<a ↵
href=3D"http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php=
" style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">over 60% of subscription ↵
journals</a>=A0do=
=A0<em>not</em>=A0embargo Green OA (though Finch certainly seems to ↵
be doin=
g its level best to give them the incentive to do so!).<br>
<br>Finch II has also re-affirmed its support for negotiating a Really ↵
Big =
Deal -- an extended national license scheme to "sustain" ↵
subscrip=
tion access during the "mixed economy" transition. ↵
Translation: P=
ublishers will have their dream of being paid a still bigger UK national li=
cense fee for all incoming subscription content, over and above the Finch f=
unds to be paid them for (Fool's) Gold OA. The UK here will be ↵
complyin=
g in a fantasy beyond publishers' wildest dreams=85<br>
<br>Finch II also proposes ↵
to<blockquote>"<em>monitor the impact of OA=
policies on learned societies... [because they] start from different posit=
ions in engaging with the transition to ↵
OA</em>."</blockquote>The only=
relevant question is whether=A0<a ↵
href=3D"https://www.google.ca/search?hl=
=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:=
http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m=
&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&=
lr=3D&q=3D(%22learned+society%22+OR+%22scholarly+society%22)+blogurl%3A=
http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbas=3D0&t=
bm=3Dblg" style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">Learned Society ↵
publishers</a>=A0ar=
e any more justified than commercial publishers in embargoing access to Lea=
rned Research in order to "sustain" their current revenue ↵
streams=
. Apart from that, post-Green Fair-Gold publishing will be as open to Learn=
ed Society publishers as to commercial publishers, if and when globally man=
dated Green makes subscriptions unsustainable. Whatever Learned Society pub=
lishing revenues were supporting "<a ↵
href=3D"https://www.google.ca/sea=
rch?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+bl=
ogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=
=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=
=3Den&lr=3D&q=3D%22good+works%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.ep=
rints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg" ↵
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)"=
>good works</a>" such as meetings and scholarships can then ↵
fund thems=
elves (via membership dues and registration fees) instead of being subsidiz=
ed by lost Learned Research impact.<br>
<br>Finch II closes with:<blockquote>"<em>Our key ↵
recommendation is=85=
to develop an interoperable system of repositories and an infrastructure t=
hat supports both Gold and Green OA</em>."</blockquote>We ↵
can all appl=
aud that, thanks to HEFCE/REF. The requisite infrastructure will be the int=
eroperable system of Green OA repositories, with immediate-deposit mandated=
for all refereed research output, Gold and Green, with or without embargoe=
s, and with or without CC-BY.<br>
</blockquote></div>
--047d7bb0435c3b315d04eb6b6557--
--
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
|
E-mail: