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


On 15 Jul 2013, at 23:59, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 05:58:03 +0100

I admire the industry of Richard Poynder and can remember the time
when he was an independent consultant but cannot agree with his
perception becoming history. He writes:

"Since then the OA movement has gone from strength to strength, in
what has become a classic David and Goliath contest - a smallish group
of impecunious but tireless OA advocates lined up against an army of
well-heeled corporations determined to stop them"

I can write from knowledge:

Some publishers are well-heeled but until recently only one publisher
has employed people to lobby about anything. They have also been very
reluctant to put enough money into their representative organisations.
Again people employed to lobby in these organisations are a new
development.

Where lobbying is done the main thrust has always been the defence of copyright.

Where there has and is lobbying against OA it is lobbying against
mandates. I cannot recall any publisher or publishing body trying to
stop BMC (2000-2001) from acting as an OA publisher. BMC can tell us
if there has been. Now of course they are members of representative
publishing bodies.

SPARC decided about 2001 to use its funds to promote OA and run down
its partnership programme. I do not consider that ARL is a tiny
organisation. Look at its basic staff list and then at the list of
(for example) of STM staff. Whatever money they have put into SPARC
has been richly supplemented by foundations not directly perhaps but
to organisations like PLOS. Of course if you are characterised as
David you do have the advantage of having the Deity on your side.

Anthony