Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] More Finch Fallout: "The Royal Society welcomes leading institutions to its Open Access Membership Programme"

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:07:58 -0400


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] More Finch Fallout: The Royal Society's Fall From Immediate, Unembargoed Green from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             [BOAI] Re: More Finch Fallout: "The Royal Society welcomes leading institutions to its Open Access Membership Programme" from amsciforum AT gmail.com

--047d7b6042be9e5aeb04e1969bc8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblicense AT gmail.com> 
wrote:

> From: "Romano, Maria" <maria.romano AT royalsociety.org>
> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:03:17 +0100
>


*"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.xhtm=
l
"*


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.


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.


For if the RS does *not* give its authors this choice, then it is certainly
not a "fair player": It is holding RS authors who want to provide OA
hostage to the payment of an additional hybrid Gold OA fee.


>From 2005 - 2010, the RS has had a checquered history with OA:
http://j.mp/RoylSocOA


In 2010, however, the RS came down squarely on "the side of the 
angels",
endorsing immediate, unembargoed Green OA self-archiving of the author's
final refereed draft: http://j.mp/RSOANGELS


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=E2=80=A6the =E2=80=9CAuthor Generated Postprint=E2=
=80=9D - Your personal
copy of the revised version of the Article as accepted by Us=E2=80=A6 on Yo=
ur
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.

But the RS would do itself a historic favour if it dropped all this
double-talk, unworthy of such a venerable institution, and lived up to its
decree that:

*"In keeping with its role as the UK's national academy of science,
The Royal Society<http://royalsociety.org/> is committed to the
widest possible dissemination of research outputs." *


by ceasing to try to hold Green OA self-archiving hostage to sustaining the
RS's subscription revenues at all costs.

There will be time for the RS to go Gold at a fair, affordable, sustainable
price, single-paid instead of over-charged and double-paid, as now (with or
without double-dipping) -- *after Green has prevailed worldwide and
made **subscriptions
no longer unsustainable.*

But that will be post-Green Fair-Gold. What the RS (and other publishers,
less venerable) are trying to use OA embargoes for today is to force
authors to pay pre-emptively for pre-Green Fools-Gold, so as to ensure that
their revenue streams do not shrink either way.

But shrink they must, because post-Green the only service the RS or any
other research journal publisher will need to perform is the management of
peer review in the online era.

And that only costs a fraction of what they are being paid now, with or
without double dipping.

The RS "Membership Programme" -- like all hybrid Fools-Gold, is a 
Trojan
Horse: http://j.mp/TRoaJan  <http://t.co/ikt7k8zh8N>

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblicense AT gmail.com> 
wrote:

> From: "Romano, Maria" <maria.romano AT royalsociety.org>
> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:03:17 +0100
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------
> The Royal Society welcomes leading institutions to its Open
> Access Membership Programme
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--------------
>
> The growing number of members since its launch early last year
> demonstrates the success of the Royal Society=E2=80=99s Open Access Membe=
rship
> Programme<
> http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/membership.xhtml>,
> as University of Cambridge, MIT and The University of Melbourne have
> joined the programme along with 30 other institutions =E2=86=92
> 
<http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/allmembers.xhtml>.
>
> The programme enables participating organisations to decrease the cost
> of the article processing charge to their authors by 25%, along with
> further promoting its open access publications and research output.
>
> Institutions choosing to affiliate themselves to the prestigious
> charity and support its open access initiatives can find out more by
> visiting our membership
> webpages<
> http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/membership.xhtml>.
>
> For more information on how your institution can support its
> researchers with discounted open access article processing charges,
> please contact marianne.haska AT royalsociety.org.
>
> In keeping with its role as the UK's national academy of science, The
> Royal Society<http://royalsociety.org/> is committed to the widest
> possible dissemination of research outputs. Hence since 2006, any
> article can be published in open access under a Creative Commons
> license<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/> in any of its
> prestigious journals<http://royalsocietypublishing.org/journals>,
> including the fully gold journal Open
> Biology<http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/>.
>
> 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.xht=
ml
> >.
>
> ---------------------------------
> About the Royal Society
> ---------------------------------
>
> The Royal Society is a self-governing Fellowship of many of the
> world=E2=80=99s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of sci=
ence,
> engineering, and medicine. The Society=E2=80=99s fundamental purpose, as =
it
> has been since its foundation in 1660, is to recognise, promote, and
> support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use
> of science for the benefit of humanity.
>
> The Society=E2=80=99s strategic priorities emphasise its commitment to th=
e
> highest quality science, to curiosity-driven research, and to the
> development and use of science for the benefit of society. These
> priorities are:
>
> 1.       Promoting science and its benefits
>
> 2.       Recognising excellence in science
>
> 3.       Supporting outstanding science
>
> 4.       Providing scientific advice for policy
>
> 5.       Fostering international and global cooperation
>
> 6.       Education and public engagement
>
> For further information please visit http://royalsociety.org or
> http://royalsocietypublishing.org.
>
> Follow Royal Society Publishing on Twitter at
> http://twitter.com/RSocPublishing or on Facebook at
> http://www.facebook.com/RoyalSocietyPublishing.FanPage.
>
> Regards,
> Sana Kazmi
> Institutional Marketing Manager
> The Royal Society
> 6-9 Carlton House Terrace
> London SW1Y 5AG
> royalsocietypublishing.org
>

--047d7b6042be9e5aeb04e1969bc8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><span 
style=3D=
"font-family:arial;font-size:small">On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 7:02 
PM, LIBLIC=
ENSE=C2=A0</span><span dir=3D"ltr" 
style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:sma=
ll">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:liblicense AT gmail.com" 
target=3D"_blank">liblicens=
e AT gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><span 
style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:small"=
>=C2=A0wrote:</span><br 
style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:small">
</p><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:=
small;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(=
204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">From: 
&quot;Romano, =
Maria&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:maria.romano AT 
royalsociety.org" target=3D"=
_blank">maria.romano AT royalsociety.org</a>&gt;<br>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:03:17 
+0100<br></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><p><=
/p><blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 
40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p style=
=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><i>&quot;Remaining a f=
air player, The Royal Society ensures that published open access articles b=
earing a publication fee are deducted from subscription prices through its =
Transparent Pricing Mechanism&quot;</i></p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;color:rgb(71,13=
5,255)"><i><span 
style=3D"text-decoration:underline"><a 
href=3D"http://roya=
lsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/transparent_pricing.xhtml">http://ro=
yalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/transparent_pricing.xhtml</a></spa=
n><span 
style=3D"color:#000000">&quot;</span></i></p>
</blockquote>

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px=
"><br></p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">The 
Royal Soci=
ety thereby pledges that it will not &quot;double-dip&quot; for hybrid 
Gold=
 OA. The RS continues to collect subscription fees from institutions worldw=
ide, but whatever additional revenue if gets from individual authors for hy=
brid Gold OA, it pledges to return as a subscription rebate to all subscrib=
ing institutions.=C2=A0</p>

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px=
"><br></p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">But does 
this =
mean the RS is a &quot;fair player&quot; insofar as OA is 
concerned?</p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px=
"><br></p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">Hardly.=C2=A0<=
/p><p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><br></p><p =
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">Yet this 
is <i>no=
t</i> because the hybrid Gold OA rebate amounts to individual 
authors&#39; =
full payments for Gold OA subsidizing the subscription costs of institution=
s worldwide. (The author&#39;s own institution only gets back a tiny 
fracti=
on of its authors&#39; Gold OA fee in its tiny portion of the worldwide 
sub=
scription rebate.)</p>

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px=
"><br></p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">No. 
Whether th=
e RS is indeed a fair player depends on<i> whether RS authors have the 
choi=
ce</i>=C2=A0-- between providing Gold OA by paying the RS that additional 
c=
ost over and above what the world&#39;s institutions are already paying 
the=
 RS in subscriptions -- or providing Green OA at no additional cost, by sel=
f-archiving their article free for all online.</p>

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px=
"><br></p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">For if 
the RS =
does <i>not</i> give its authors this choice, then it is certainly 
not a &q=
uot;fair player&quot;: It is holding RS authors who want to provide OA 
host=
age to the payment of an additional hybrid Gold OA fee.</p>

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px=
"><br></p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">From 
2005 - 20=
10, the RS has had a checquered history with OA: <a 
href=3D"http://j.mp/Roy=
lSocOA">http://j.mp/RoylSocOA</a>=C2=A0</p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px=
"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">In 
2010, howev=
er, the RS came down squarely on &quot;the side of the angels&quot;, 
endors=
ing immediate, unembargoed Green OA self-archiving of the author&#39;s 
fina=
l refereed draft: <a 
href=3D"http://j.mp/RSOANGELS">http://j.mp/RSOANGELS</=
a></p>

<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px=
"><br></p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">But now 
-- per=
haps -- 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?):</p>
<p 
style=3D"margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(50,51,51)=
;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<blockquote style=3D"margin:0 0 0 
40px;border:none;padding:0px"><p style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 
16px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(50,51,51)">=
<i>&quot;You are free to post=E2=80=A6the =E2=80=9C<b>Author 
Generated Post=
print</b>=E2=80=9D - Your personal copy of the revised version of the 
Artic=
le as accepted by Us=E2=80=A6 on Your personal or institutional web site an=
d load it onto an institutional or not for profit repository no earlier tha=
n 12 months from the date of first publication of the Definitive Published =
Version.&quot; <a 
href=3D"http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/li=
cence.xhtml">http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/licence.xhtml</=
a></i></p>
</blockquote><div class=3D"gmail_quote">Or is this just 
another (silly) att=
empt to distinguish between authors positing on their &quot;institutional 
w=
ebsite&quot; (unembargoed) versus posting in their &quot;institutional 
repo=
sitory&quot; (embargoed) -- in which case RS authors can happily ignore 
thi=
s empty pseudo-distinction, knowing that their institutional repository is =
indeed their institutional website.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote">But the RS =
would do itself a historic favour if it dropped all this double-talk, unwor=
thy of such a venerable institution, and lived up to its decree 
that:</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><blockquote 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px=
;border:none;padding:0px"><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><i>&quot;In keeping wi=
th its role as the UK&#39;s national academy of science, The=C2=A0Royal 
Soc=
iety&lt;<a href=3D"http://royalsociety.org/" 
target=3D"_blank">http://royal=
society.org/</a>&gt; is committed to the widest=C2=A0possible 
dissemination=
 of research outputs.&quot;=C2=A0</i></div>
</blockquote><div><br><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote">by ceasing to try to hold =
Green OA self-archiving hostage to sustaining the RS&#39;s subscription 
rev=
enues at all costs.</div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D=
"gmail_quote">
There will be time for the RS to go Gold at a fair, affordable, sustainable=
 price, single-paid instead of over-charged and double-paid, as now (with o=
r without double-dipping) -- <i>after Green has prevailed worldwide and 
mad=
e=C2=A0</i><i>subscriptions no longer 
unsustainable.</i></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote">But that wi=
ll be post-Green Fair-Gold. What the RS (and other publishers, less venerab=
le) are trying to use OA embargoes for today is to force authors to pay pre=
-emptively for pre-Green Fools-Gold, so as to ensure that their revenue str=
eams do not shrink either way.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote">But shrink =
they must, because post-Green the only service the RS or any other research=
 journal publisher will need to perform is the management of peer review in=
 the online era.</div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote">And that on=
ly costs a fraction of what they are being paid now, with or without double=
 dipping.</div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">
The RS &quot;Membership Programme&quot; -- like all hybrid Fools-Gold, 
is a=
 Trojan Horse:=C2=A0<a 
href=3D"http://t.co/ikt7k8zh8N">http://j.mp/TRoaJan=
=C2=A0</a></div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div 
class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote">On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 7:02 PM, LIBLICENSE <span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:liblicense AT gmail.com" 
target=3D"_blank">liblicense AT gmail.com<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 
.8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
From: &quot;Romano, Maria&quot; &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:maria.romano AT royalsoc=
iety.org" target=3D"_blank">maria.romano AT 
royalsociety.org</a>&gt;<br>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:03:17 +0100<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------<br>
The Royal Society welcomes leading institutions to its Open Access=C2=A0Mem=
bership Programme<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------------<br>
<br>
The growing number of members since its launch early last year<br>
demonstrates the success of the Royal Society=E2=80=99s Open Access Members=
hip<br>
Programme&lt;<a 
href=3D"http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/m=
embership.xhtml" 
target=3D"_blank">http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/l=
ibrarians/membership.xhtml</a>&gt;,<br>
as University of Cambridge, MIT and The University of Melbourne have<br>
joined the programme along with 30 other institutions =E2=86=92<br>
&lt;<a 
href=3D"http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/allmembers=
.xhtml" 
target=3D"_blank">http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians=
/allmembers.xhtml</a>&gt;.<br>
<br>
The programme enables participating organisations to decrease the 
cost<br>
of the article processing charge to their authors by 25%, along with<br>
further promoting its open access publications and research output.<br>
<br>
Institutions choosing to affiliate themselves to the prestigious<br>
charity and support its open access initiatives can find out more by<br>
visiting our membership<br>
webpages&lt;<a 
href=3D"http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/me=
mbership.xhtml" 
target=3D"_blank">http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/li=
brarians/membership.xhtml</a>&gt;.<br>
<br>
For more information on how your institution can support its<br>
researchers with discounted open access article processing charges,<br>
please contact <a href=3D"mailto:marianne.haska AT 
royalsociety.org" target=3D=
"_blank">marianne.haska AT royalsociety.org</a>.<br>
<br>
In keeping with its role as the UK&#39;s national academy of science, 
The<b=
r>
Royal Society&lt;<a href=3D"http://royalsociety.org/" 
target=3D"_blank">htt=
p://royalsociety.org/</a>&gt; is committed to the widest<br>
possible dissemination of research outputs. Hence since 2006, any<br>
article can be published in open access under a Creative Commons<br>
license&lt;<a 
href=3D"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" target=
=3D"_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</a>&gt; in any of i=
ts<br>
prestigious journals&lt;<a 
href=3D"http://royalsocietypublishing.org/journa=
ls" 
target=3D"_blank">http://royalsocietypublishing.org/journals</a>&gt;,<b=
r>
including the fully gold journal Open<br>
Biology&lt;<a href=3D"http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/" 
target=3D"_b=
lank">http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/</a>&gt;.<br>
<br>
Remaining a fair player, The Royal Society ensures that published 
open<br>
access articles bearing a publication fee are deducted from<br>
subscription prices through its Transparent Pricing Mechanism<br>
&lt;<a 
href=3D"http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/librarians/transparen=
t_pricing.xhtml" 
target=3D"_blank">http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/l=
ibrarians/transparent_pricing.xhtml</a>&gt;.<br>
<br>
---------------------------------<br>
About the Royal Society<br>
---------------------------------<br>
<br>
The Royal Society is a self-governing Fellowship of many of the<br>
world=E2=80=99s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of scien=
ce,<br>
engineering, and medicine. The Society=E2=80=99s fundamental purpose, as it=
<br>
has been since its foundation in 1660, is to recognise, promote, and<br>
support excellence in science and to encourage the development and 
use<br>
of science for the benefit of humanity.<br>
<br>
The Society=E2=80=99s strategic priorities emphasise its commitment to the<=
br>
highest quality science, to curiosity-driven research, and to the<br>
development and use of science for the benefit of society. These<br>
priorities are:<br>
<br>
1. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Promoting science and its benefits<br>
<br>
2. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Recognising excellence in science<br>
<br>
3. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Supporting outstanding science<br>
<br>
4. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Providing scientific advice for policy<br>
<br>
5. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Fostering international and global 
cooperation<br>
<br>
6. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Education and public engagement<br>
<br>
For further information please visit <a 
href=3D"http://royalsociety.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">http://royalsociety.org</a> or<br>
<a href=3D"http://royalsocietypublishing.org" 
target=3D"_blank">http://roya=
lsocietypublishing.org</a>.<br>
<br>
Follow Royal Society Publishing on Twitter at<br>
<a href=3D"http://twitter.com/RSocPublishing" 
target=3D"_blank">http://twit=
ter.com/RSocPublishing</a> or on Facebook at<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.facebook.com/RoyalSocietyPublishing.FanPage" 
target=
=3D"_blank">http://www.facebook.com/RoyalSocietyPublishing.FanPage</a>.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Sana Kazmi<br>
Institutional Marketing Manager<br>
The Royal Society<br>
6-9 Carlton House Terrace<br>
London SW1Y 5AG<br>
<a href=3D"http://royalsocietypublishing.org" 
target=3D"_blank">royalsociet=
ypublishing.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div>

--047d7b6042be9e5aeb04e1969bc8--

        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

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

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 gmail.com
      • This Message


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.
> 


ATTACHMENT: message.html!

-- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

[BOAI] Re: More Finch Fallout: "The Royal Society welcomes leading institutions to its Open Access Membership Programme"

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 19:33:59 -0400


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

--089e01175f8306232d04e1d1a5ab
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The following posting from Marc Couture spells out very explicitly the two
ways in which the new RS policy on Green OA can  be interpreted. (This, for
those who missed the subtlety, is precisely why I wrote "perhaps" in: 
"But
now -- perhaps -- the RS seems to have adopted a 12-month embargo on Green
OA...")

*RE: *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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Couture Marc <marc.couture AT teluq.ca>
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM
Subject: [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: More Finch Fallout: "The Royal
Society welcomes leading institutions to its Open Access Membership
Programme"
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal AT 
eprints.org>

A =93much objective=94 Graham Triggs (says Marianne Haska from the Royal
Society) wrote:

=93According to that resource [probably talking of
http://royalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/licence.xhtml] they [RS]
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.=94

I=92m sorry, and at the risk of being considered not so =93much objective=
=94 by
certain parties involved, I found that Triggs=92 description of the
permissions applying to postprints is only one possible interpretation of
the terms of the licence.

If I simply reformat the relevant part of the licence, without changing a
word, it reads:

=93You are free to:

- post [the author generated postprint] 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...=94

According to this formatting, one concludes that the embargo applies to
repositories but not to websites, which raises exactly the inconsistency
Harnad points out.

As a general rule, when I=92m faced with two possible, equally valid
interpretations of the terms of a licence, I feel perfectly at ease to
choose the one that suits me best. In this case, as long as the text of the
license remains what it is now, I wouldn=92t hesitate to post a postprint o=
n
any website hosted by my university at (or before) the date of publication.

As to Harnad=92s argument that an institution=92s repository is a (personal=
 or
institutional) website by another name, I think it applies where there is a
functional integration of these websites and the institutional repository.
This is the case in Southampton, as Harnad mentions, but also, as I found
out, at Li=E8ge, where a hyperlink to the faculty member=92s papers in the
repository seems to appear automatically in faculty home pages (see, for
instance, 
https://my.ulg.ac.be/MyULg/TR_xt/trombi.do?mode=3Dview&key=3DU030=
247).

This is in fact one of the arguments used to convince researchers to
deposit their papers in the institution=92s repository: no more need to
maintain a publication list on one=92s website or home page, as it=92s
automatically taken in charge by the repository software.

Marc Couture

--089e01175f8306232d04e1d1a5ab
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div 
style=3D"word-wrap:break-word"><div>The=
 following posting from Marc Couture spells out very explicitly the two way=
s in which the new RS policy on Green OA can =A0be interpreted. (This, for =
those who missed the subtlety, is precisely why I wrote 
&quot;perhaps&quot;=
 in: &quot;<span style=3D"font-family:Helvetica">But now -- 
perhaps -- the =
RS seems to have adopted a 12-month embargo on Green 
OA...&quot;)</span></d=
iv>
</div></blockquote><blockquote 
type=3D"cite"><div style=3D"word-wrap:break-=
word"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;b=
order-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">
<b>RE: </b>On 2013-07-18, at 7:39 AM, Marianne Haska &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:=
marianne.haska AT royalsociety.org">marianne.haska AT 
royalsociety.org</a>&gt; wr=
ote:=A0=A0</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0p=
x 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bo=
rder-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<font color=3D"#990000" 
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica">Replies below from =
a much objective Graham Triggs</font><span 
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica">=
=A0</span><span style=3D"font-family:Helvetica">to 
Stephen Harnad</span></b=
lockquote>
</div></blockquote></div>---------- Forwarded message 
----------<br><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote">From: <b 
class=3D"gmail_sendername">Couture Marc</b> <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:marc.couture AT 
teluq.ca">marc.couture AT t=
eluq.ca</a>&gt;</span><br>
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM<br>Subject: [GOAL] Re: 
[sparc-oaforum] =
Re: More Finch Fallout: &quot;The Royal Society welcomes leading 
institutio=
ns to its Open Access Membership Programme&quot;<br>To: 
&quot;Global Open A=
ccess List (Successor of AmSci)&quot; &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:goal AT eprints.or=
g">goal AT eprints.org</a>&gt;<br>
<br>A =93much objective=94 Graham Triggs (says Marianne Haska from the 
Roya=
l Society) wrote:<br>
<br>
=93According to that resource [probably talking of <a 
href=3D"http://royals=
ocietypublishing.org/site/authors/licence.xhtml" 
target=3D"_blank">http://r=
oyalsocietypublishing.org/site/authors/licence.xhtml</a>] they [RS] have 
ex=
actly 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 distribut=
ion is limited by the embargo period.=94<br>

<br>
I=92m sorry, and at the risk of being considered not so =93much objective=
=94 by certain parties involved, I found that Triggs=92 description of the =
permissions applying to postprints is only one possible interpretation of t=
he terms of the licence.<br>

<br>
If I simply reformat the relevant part of the licence, without changing a w=
ord, it reads:<br>
<br>
=93You are free to:<br>
<br>
- post [the author generated postprint] on Your (personal OR institutional)=
 web site;<br>
<br>
AND<br>
<br>
- load it onto an (institutional OR not for profit) repository no earlier t=
han 12 months from the date of first publication...=94<br>
<br>
According to this formatting, one concludes that the embargo applies to rep=
ositories but not to websites, which raises exactly the inconsistency Harna=
d points out.<br>
<br>
As a general rule, when I=92m faced with two possible, equally valid interp=
retations of the terms of a licence, I feel perfectly at ease to choose the=
 one that suits me best. In this case, as long as the text of the license r=
emains what it is now, I wouldn=92t hesitate to post a postprint on any web=
site hosted by my university at (or before) the date of publication.<br>

<br>
As to Harnad=92s argument that an institution=92s repository is a (personal=
 or institutional) website by another name, I think it applies where there =
is a functional integration of these websites and the institutional reposit=
ory. This is the case in Southampton, as Harnad mentions, but also, as I fo=
und out, at Li=E8ge, where a hyperlink to the faculty member=92s papers in =
the repository seems to appear automatically in faculty home pages (see, fo=
r instance, <a 
href=3D"https://my.ulg.ac.be/MyULg/TR_xt/trombi.do?mode=3Dvi=
ew&amp;key=3DU030247" 
target=3D"_blank">https://my.ulg.ac.be/MyULg/TR_xt/tr=
ombi.do?mode=3Dview&amp;key=3DU030247</a>).<br>

<br>
This is in fact one of the arguments used to convince researchers to deposi=
t their papers in the institution=92s repository: no more need to maintain =
a publication list on one=92s website or home page, as it=92s automatically=
 taken in charge by the repository software.<br>

<br>
Marc Couture<br>
<br><br></div>

--089e01175f8306232d04e1d1a5ab--

        
--      
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] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .