From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:31:12 +0000

Ah yes, the mystical incantation “the publishing phase of research is
an integral part of the research life cycle.” Repeat it as often as
you like, but “the publishing phase” will still cost money in addition
to what it costs to do the research phase of research. (Gluttons for
punishment can read a transcript of a debate Jean-Claude and I
conducted on just this topic a few years ago at:
http://bit.ly/2CvCGl5.)

As for the idea that “at most 2%” of research funds would have to be
redirected in order to support open publication of the results, it’s
always important to put percentages in the context of actual numbers
(and vice versa). So what does 2% look like in actual dollars? Let’s
take a few real-world examples: in 2016, the US Dept of Energy made
$5.3 billion in grants. In 2015, the Wellcome Trust made $3.6 billion
in grants, and the Gates Foundation (if I’m reading their financials
correctly) made $4.9 billion in grants. That makes $13.8 billion from
three major funding bodies. 2% of their total grants amounts to $276
million.

Over the years, I’ve learned that whenever someone tries to make a
number look either large or small by presenting it as either a raw
number or a percentage, it’s always wise to ask for the version of the
number that the person didn’t offer. So, for example: those who want
to put this kind of OA subvention in the most positive light will say
“It’s only 2% of the research budget--what’s the big deal?”, while
those who want to raise concerns about the subvention will say “$276
million less research is going to get done!” If you want to get a
sense for the real-world impact of the policy, then you want to think
about both of those figures. It’s true that 2% is a small percentage;
it’s also true that $276 million is a lot of money. Both of those are
important facts.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]


On 2/18/18, 1:33 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of
LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

    From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 16:50:07 +0000

    Responding to Rick Anderson's ultimate challenge, I should like to
    point him to what the Wellcome is exploring, and what the European
    Commission is envisioning with a publishing platform, etc. All these
    funding institutions are coming to the realization, as I have argued
    before, including with Rick, that the publishing phase of research is
    an integral part of the research life cycle, and that it costs at most
    2% of research. Funders are simply beginning to factor this in. They
    are thinking more and more about developing their own platforms, and
    some are beginning to do so. Add to this the growing convergence
    between publishing platforms and repository networks. Once these two
    trends find their full bearings and their modus operandi (F1000
    Research anyone?), then Rick Anderson's challenge will appear both
    trivial and passé.

    Jean-Claude Guédon


    ________________________________________

    From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
    Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:24:52 +0000

    Adam, I hope I won’t be accused of shouting simply for responding.

    You make valid points about the difficulty of negotiating legitimate
    (i.e. legal) access to toll-access content. Sci-Hub’s relative ease of
    use is often invoked when people want to change the subject from other
    salient aspects of Elbakyan’s enterprise, such as her dishonesty, her
    proud ignorance of fundamental points of law, her disregard for the
    rights of others (those whose rights get in the way of her own goals),
    her strange inconsistency when it comes to giving everyone access,
    etc.

    But with regard to the ease-and-simplicity question: one of the things
    I’ve been wondering is to what degree it’s possible to make legitimate
    access as easy as stolen access. Granted that publishers (and, we
    ought to admit, libraries) generally do a mediocre job at best when it
    comes to providing friction-free access to content—even for those who
    have legal access to it—to what degree does that represent a failing
    on our part, and to what degree does it suggest that doing things
    legally and ethically will simply often be more trouble than doing
    them illegally and unethically? No matter how easy you make the
    check-out process in a store, it will probably never be as simple as
    simply walking into the store, picking up what you want, and walking
    out with it. (Though Amazon seems to be making some headway in that
    direction right now.) None of that is to say that we shouldn’t do
    much, much better when it comes to our interfaces and authentication
    processes. It’s just to say that I’m not sure how reducible the
    friction is in reality. Surely it can be reduced; but by how much (and
    still remain legitimate or legal)?

    One answer to that question might be “The whole concept of ‘illegal
    and unethical access’ is what we need to abandon. All scholarship
    should be freely available to all without any kind of restriction.” To
    which I would say “When you’ve figured out a legal and sustainable way
    of providing free and universal access to all scholarship, the costs
    of which don’t threaten to outweigh the benefits, I’ll be very
    interested to hear about it. You’ll be the first one to figure it
    out.”

    ---
    Rick Anderson
    Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
    Marriott Library, University of Utah
    Desk: (801) 587-9989
    Cell: (801) 721-1687
    [log in to unmask]