From: Frederick Friend <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:38 +0000

The “Statement on position in relation to open access” issued by the
Editors of twenty-one important history journals is a very significant
development and has not received the discussion it deserves (see
http://www.history.ac.uk/news/2012-12-10/statement-position-relation-open-access
). In particular the Statement contains the following decision in
relation to “green” open access when the author does not pay an APC:
“The period of embargo we will offer will be 36 MONTHS. We think this
is the shortest possible period that would still protect our viability
as subscription-funded organisations, which have to pay for
copyediting and the management of peer review, and is fully consistent
with the need to make research publicly available.” Given the
importance of the journals listed in the Statement this decision will
have a major impact not only upon the academic history community
world-wide but also upon the substantial readership of history
journals outside academia.

Although the Statement comes from the Editors it has to be assumed
that the decision to raise the embargo period to 36 months is made
with the blessing of the journals’ proprietors. Many of the journals
on the list are owned by publishers with embargo periods shorter than
36 months, even for humanities journals, so the question needs to be
asked: is this Statement the precursor for a general increase in the
length of embargo periods? One of the predictions made by critics of
new open access policies in the UK is that publishers will exploit the
weaknesses in the Finch Report, increase embargo periods and stunt the
growth in open access repository content.

The rationale given by the Editors of the History journals for the
increase in the embargo period also needs to be challenged. Where is
their evidence that their subscription base will be harmed by short
embargo periods? Can they name any journal in any subject field that
has ceased publication because of the deposit of content in open
access repositories? Repository content on open access is now at a
sufficiently high level that even a minor impact upon subscriptions
would have been noticed by now. The only reason for cancellation for
which there is any evidence is when unjustified increases in
subscription rates have occurred. I have heard it said that the longer
usage half-life of humanities journals puts them at greater risk over
a longer period, but a longer half-life does not cause librarians to
cancel subscriptions; if anything it reinforces the long-term value of
a journal.

The Statement also misses an opportunity to embrace the value of both
green and gold open access to those who read the history journals and
consequently the value of open access to the history institutions and
to the journal publishers. It may happen that a large number of
history authors are able to fund an APC but the present signs are not
hopeful. A longer green embargo period will certainly reduce usage of
the journal content over time, and there is no evidence that the
reduction in open access usage will be made up through increased sales
of subscriptions or single articles. The emphasis should surely be
upon using open access to increase the readership of the history
journals. Without a high readership the future of not only the
journals but also of the history research institutions could be put at
risk in a climate of reduced public funding. It is in this broad
context that I find the History journal Editors’ Statement so
disappointing.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk