From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 01:22:29 +0000

Anthony and I may have different views on many things, but he has not
articulated one. I certainly do not want to force authors to publish
open access, much as I believe in the benefits of that form of
distribution.  At Duke our OA policy, which sets green open access as
the default, had its origin in a faculty committee and was adopted
unanimously by the Academic Council.  I certainly cannot and did not
force any decision on those groups.  And no one is compelled to
publish anywhere or with any particular business model under this
policy.  The institution is simply given a license for OA deposit in
our own repository by the copyright holders, who are also able to
waive that license if they wish.

Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
Director of Scholarly Communication
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC 27708


On Jun 24, 2013, at 8:53 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:45:10 +0100
>
> I think there may have been some misunderstandings here. My experience
> of interviewing academics over the last two months has been and the
> conclusions I draw are:
>
> 1.      The activities of the publishers that Beall has listed has
> been really and unfairly damaging to Open Access as a whole.
> Academics seem to believe that is a systemic fault following from
> paying to publish. Note that I do not believe this: I am recording. I
> have yet to meet an academic who has complained about recently being
> pressed to publish in, referee for or go on the editorial board of a
> subscription journal whether new or old. I think DOAJ is correct in
> taking note of this. I think Beall is doing a service to Open Access.
>
> 2.      Likewise in discussion about peer review quite a number of
> academics have described circumstances when they are encouraged and
> even (much less common) forced to cite other (supposedly relevant)
> articles previously published in a journal they have submitted an
> article to. My understanding is that most of these journals are
> established subscription based journals though I did not ask this
> question directly. I have read through the comment in Nature and the
> original statement from ISI and I do not see a definition of
> self-citation but my understanding was that this form of gaming
> involves citation by an author in a journal of other articles
> published in a journal not (as Joe seems to think) citation of one’s
> own previous articles. For many years there has been discussion at
> least in publishing and academic circles about how far one can go in
> encouraging self-citation in this sense (compelling has always been
> frowned upon): there is no secret here. It now seems to be generally
> felt that editors should be discouraged (prevented?) by publishers
> from adopting the practice of offering to the submitting author a list
> of articles they might site.
>
> I happen to have different views from Kevin. I do not want to force
> authors to have to publish open access through mandates. But this is a
> different question.
>
> I have however nothing against nor ever had any objection to the open
> access model only doubts about its sustainability in economic terms. I
> can give references if anyone was interested.  I am certainly against
> the OA model as such being trashed.
>
> Anthony