From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:42:05 +0100

This thread is getting rather long - but at heart there is a simple
fact.  Anthony's thesis is that there has been no 'anti-OA' lobbying
other than than that related to mandates.  I showed that this isn't
true.

I do find it amusing that Anthony would have us discount the oral
evidence from the House of Commons.  Apparently highly paid and
competent captains of industry, leaders of multi-million pound
international companies, were so bamboozled by such forensic questions
as:

who do you think should pay and who should have free or nearly free
access? Do you have any form of means-testing?

that they were tricked into suggesting that it would be dangerous for
patients to have access to research literature.

But even if we discount that evidence, what else were publishers
saying about open access back then?  Well, here's Michael Mabe, now of
STM, then of Elsevier, being asked about author-pays business models
(in 2005, I think):

Elsevier's Michael Mabe sees this as inherently flawed. "Under the
existing subscription-based model articles are only published if they
reach a certain threshold criteria of quality, determined by peer
review," he says. "With the author pays model, run by Open Access
publishers, the temptation to include a few extra articles to get the
extra money is very strong - especially at times of financial
pressure. [To us] there is a significant risk that the quality of the
literature would slowly decline under that type of pressure."
(http://www.dclab.com/archive/article_stm_business_model.ASP)

Once again, fears of the perversion of peer-review being raised.  Once
again, noting to do with mandates.

[Anthony appears interested in the financing of SPARC Europe.  I can
only speak for my time there 2002-2010, but we were a member
organisation, with funding coming from annual subscriptions.  We were
never a rich organisation - enough to pay for my salary, (economy!)
travel, and a tiny amount - a few thousand pounds a year - to support
projects.  Towards the end of my period we got to the heady heights of
1.5 staff members.  Not sure if that made us a Goliath.]

David




On 17 Jul 2013, at 22:21, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:47:19 +0100

I have looked up the Publishers Association evidence to the Inquiry
David mentioned.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we22.htm

I can find no evidence for an attack on the open access model unless
you count the following para 45:

"We harbour unease about the potential for bias in an open access
publishing model based on grants, sponsorship and patronage.  Those
who can pay will get published, but what security is there for those
who cannot? Such a system is likely to favour the developed world over
the developing world, and the better endowed US-based researchers over
their European colleagues. The concept is essentially payment for
publishing services, and it seems to us inevitable that submission
fees will follow. Will reviewers then demand payment, and what will be
the consequences for the integrity of peer review?"

The two assumptions in the last two sentences have not yet been
realised and the second one seems to me an odd one. If it is an attack
it is an attack on a total open access environment ensured by mandate
but not backed up sufficient funding.

Other mentions of OA publishing were concerned with sustainability - a
reasonable concern for a publisher I would suggest. It is still a
concern for learned society publishers in particular.

As he knows very well, because like me he was there, the instances he
gives of verbal responses do not at least represent considered
evidence. They were off the cuff. One of those who spoke certainly
regrets the way he phrased a perfectly reasonable point. It was an
intimidating scene marshalled by chair who had already made up his
mind before the inquiry.

Does David P class himself as the underfunded underdog? I think he
worked for SPARC Europe in those days, and I looked at the site in
vain to discover the sources of funding. However the parent body does
tell us who pays for their activities: "SPARC finances its efforts
through coalition member fees that support operating expenses and help
build a capital fund to provide start-up money for its programs. SPARC
also seeks grants to augment the capital fund. The key to SPARC's
success, however, is the commitment of its approximately 200 coalition
members to support SPARC initiatives. The members elect a small group
of their own to assist SPARC in creating and governing its programs
through the SPARC Steering Committee according to the SPARC governance
policies". I do not think the future King David had 200 slingers
behind him.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----

From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:35 +0100

I'm not convinced by Anthony's version of history - especially his
assertion that the only anti-OA lobbying has been on the issue of
mandates.

Let's remind ourselves of the 2004 UK House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee inquiry into scholarly publishing.  The evidence
is all available at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39902.htm

There were three main 'anti-OA' lines from the publishers in both the
written and oral evidence that had nothing to do with mandates:

1. OA is unnecessary as big deals have given everybody who needs
access the access they need.

2. Gold OA through publication charges will pervert peer review (see,
for example, the answer of Crispin Davis from Elsevier to Q65 in the
first oral evidence session)

3. OA will put information into the hands of the ignorant and
uneducated leading to dangerous results (see, for example, the answer
of John Jarvis from Wiley to Q19 in the first oral evidence session)

The perversion of peer review was, of course, picked up in the PRISM
campaign - fronted by the AAP/PSP (and paid for by whom I wonder?)
that attempted to equate open access to junk science
(http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/08/publishers-launch-anti-oa-lobbying.html)

These lines of argument diminished as BMC, PLoS, Hindawi, etc, etc,
proved the viability of high quality OA journal publishing, but let's
not pretend that there was no lobby against OA in general 10 years
ago.

(I would also argue that the lobbying on copyright and mandates has
been damaging, but at least Anthony concedes that it exists!)

David