Sound and dispassionate analysis. Excellent!
Peter Suber
公開分享 -Taking on the jobs argument for the RWA
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) contends that the Research Works Act (RWA) is necessary to protect jobs and sustainability in the publishing industry <http://goo.gl/aaVnw>. Here are five arguments against this unargued claim.
(1) The NIH has had an OA mandate in place since April 2008. At two Congressional hearings since then, members of Congress directly asked publishers who opposed the NIH policy whether they could point to any harm the policy had caused. Both times, publishers were unable to point to any harm such as journal cancellations or lost jobs.
See the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in September 2008 <http://goo.gl/s0d2Q> and the hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Policy, the Census and National Archives in July 2010 <http://goo.gl/PxKHV>.
(2) If the NIH policy will cause harm in the future, publishers have the power to protect themselves without new legislation. Under the NIH policy, publishers retain the fundamental right to refuse to publish any work for any reason, including NIH-funded work. Whenever they believe that the costs of publishing NIH-funded authors exceed the benefits, they may refuse to publish those authors. But to date, 100% of surveyed publishers accommodate the NIH policy <http://goo.gl/4kKjc>. That is, no known publishers refuse to publish NIH-funded authors on account of its OA policy. We don't have to protect publishers when they have the means to protect themselves and choose not to take advantage of them.
(3) Many subscription-based or non-OA publishers voluntarily do more to provide OA than the NIH policy requires. See three kinds of examples:
(3a) journals participating in PubMed Central, many with embargo periods shorter than the NIH-allowed 12 months <http://goo.gl/U4JHV>,
(3b) journals providing OA to the published editions of articles by NIH-funded authors, and not just the unedited peer-reviewed manuscripts <http://goo.gl/0p2Hk>, and
(3c) journals depositing their articles in PubMed Central, under open licenses rather than all-rights-reserved copyrights, and whether or not their authors are NIH-funded, <http://goo.gl/bGpmR>.
(4) The profit margins in the journal divisions of Elsevier, Informa, and Wiley were 30-35% in 2011 <http://goo.gl/aPltZ>. Not all academic publishers are doing this well. But the ones doing better than Exxon-Mobil seem to be the ones steering the ship at AAP.
(5) Finally, providing OA to publicly-funded research creates jobs, and creates economic benefits far exceeding the costs. For a summary of the evidence (eight single-spaced pages), see the answer to Question 1 in Harvard's response to the recent White House call for comments on OA to peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally-funded research <http://goo.gl/dYBDv>. Compare it to the unargued assertions and self-interested FUD of the publishing lobby.
#oa, #openaccess , #rwa ,
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) contends that the Research Works Act (RWA) is necessary to protect jobs and sustainability in the publishing industry <http://goo.gl/aaVnw>. Here are five arguments against this unargued claim.
(1) The NIH has had an OA mandate in place since April 2008. At two Congressional hearings since then, members of Congress directly asked publishers who opposed the NIH policy whether they could point to any harm the policy had caused. Both times, publishers were unable to point to any harm such as journal cancellations or lost jobs.
See the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in September 2008 <http://goo.gl/s0d2Q> and the hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Information Policy, the Census and National Archives in July 2010 <http://goo.gl/PxKHV>.
(2) If the NIH policy will cause harm in the future, publishers have the power to protect themselves without new legislation. Under the NIH policy, publishers retain the fundamental right to refuse to publish any work for any reason, including NIH-funded work. Whenever they believe that the costs of publishing NIH-funded authors exceed the benefits, they may refuse to publish those authors. But to date, 100% of surveyed publishers accommodate the NIH policy <http://goo.gl/4kKjc>. That is, no known publishers refuse to publish NIH-funded authors on account of its OA policy. We don't have to protect publishers when they have the means to protect themselves and choose not to take advantage of them.
(3) Many subscription-based or non-OA publishers voluntarily do more to provide OA than the NIH policy requires. See three kinds of examples:
(3a) journals participating in PubMed Central, many with embargo periods shorter than the NIH-allowed 12 months <http://goo.gl/U4JHV>,
(3b) journals providing OA to the published editions of articles by NIH-funded authors, and not just the unedited peer-reviewed manuscripts <http://goo.gl/0p2Hk>, and
(3c) journals depositing their articles in PubMed Central, under open licenses rather than all-rights-reserved copyrights, and whether or not their authors are NIH-funded, <http://goo.gl/bGpmR>.
(4) The profit margins in the journal divisions of Elsevier, Informa, and Wiley were 30-35% in 2011 <http://goo.gl/aPltZ>. Not all academic publishers are doing this well. But the ones doing better than Exxon-Mobil seem to be the ones steering the ship at AAP.
(5) Finally, providing OA to publicly-funded research creates jobs, and creates economic benefits far exceeding the costs. For a summary of the evidence (eight single-spaced pages), see the answer to Question 1 in Harvard's response to the recent White House call for comments on OA to peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally-funded research <http://goo.gl/dYBDv>. Compare it to the unargued assertions and self-interested FUD of the publishing lobby.
#oa, #openaccess , #rwa ,
18
17
10 則留言
翻譯
Useful and interesting. Thank you!
翻譯
Heather Piwowar
+
1
2
1
2
1
Great stuff, Peter.
Another argument: back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that Elsevier could move to a PLoS business model and not lose jobs (http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/rwa-job-losses/). So it isn't jobs that are at stake, it is a business model (and associated profit)... govt has no business protecting that at the expense of taxpayer access and generative research.
Another argument: back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that Elsevier could move to a PLoS business model and not lose jobs (http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/rwa-job-losses/). So it isn't jobs that are at stake, it is a business model (and associated profit)... govt has no business protecting that at the expense of taxpayer access and generative research.
翻譯
Peter Suber
+
3
4
3
4
3
This just in. Simba Information reports <http://goo.gl/TGAXt> that "Amid budgetary pressures and a slow economic recovery [PS: and growing OA], the combined markets for science, technical and medical (STM) publishing grew 3.4% to $21.1 billion in 2011."
This is not an industry that needs protection, especially if the protection would come at the expense of research, researchers, research institutions, taxpayers, and the public-interest missions of the federal funding agencies.
This is not an industry that needs protection, especially if the protection would come at the expense of research, researchers, research institutions, taxpayers, and the public-interest missions of the federal funding agencies.
翻譯
Good morning
what do you think about diffusion of Open Access in Italy? thank you
what do you think about diffusion of Open Access in Italy? thank you
翻譯
+Michela Pia: OA isn't moving as fast in Italy as it is in many other countries, but it's making steady progress. See the developments tagged "oa.italy" in the OA Tracking Project, <http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.italy>.
翻譯
Thank you very much. I have another question for you: whose fault is it?
翻譯
Following up the Simba Info report above, also see the Elsevier growth data +William Gunn quotes <http://goo.gl/0yzm4> from the company's Q2 2011 earnings report <http://goo.gl/VVZb1>.
翻譯
I think it's absolutely incredible! Big companies as Reed Elsevier are powerfuller and powefuller because, expecially at university in Italy, professors don't know Open Access. And when they know it, they say that Open Access is a risk for their pubblications. It's a hard work! Professors prefer pubblishing with Reed Elsevier. And as a vicious circle universities buy it.
翻譯
Very nice indeed! Thanks.
翻譯
新增留言...