From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:43:37 -0400

On 2012-07-29, at 9:28 PM,  Stella Dutton  wrote:

> Stevan;  Like many publishers, we are genuinely trying to find a way
> in the long run for our subs based journals to transition from a subs
> based business model to a gold OA model, if that is what the world
> wants.  Stella/BMJ

Stella,

What the (research) world needs and wants is OA, not a new business
model.

One of the two ways to provide OA is by a transition in the subs business
model to Gold OA publishing.

That way is uncertain, slow, and costly.

The other way is for researchers to provide OA by self-archiving their
refereed final drafts (Green OA) (and for their institutions and
funders to mandate it).

Green OA can be provided swiftly, certainly and free of extra cost
(while institutional subscriptions are paying publication costs in full).

If (1) the refereed Green OA version is found to be sufficient for all user
needs, institutions will cancel subscriptions, inducing a transition
to Gold OA, paid for out of the subscription cancelation savings (rather
than out of scarce research funds, as now).

If (2) the refereed Green OA version is not found to be sufficient for all user
needs, institutions will not cancel subscriptions, and subscriptions will
continue to pay the cost of publication.

With (1) we have OA, now, and a transition to Gold OA later.

With (2) we have OA, now, and no transition to Gold OA.

>  It cannot be done by a flick of a switch without damaging the
> journals we have, which authors seem to value at the moment judging
> from the number of submissions we get.

I agree completely. What needs to be done, today, is for funders and
institutions to mandate Green OA rather than pay extra, pre-emptively,
for Gold OA, out of scarce research funds, while institutional subscriptions
are still paying publication costs in full (as the Finch Committee and
the RCUK have just recommended, unaccountably, in the UK).

And certainly not to just keep waiting for OA via a change in publisher
business model.

> Many/most of our authors
> simply don't have the funds to pay OA gold fees.  They are clinicians
> without research grants working in hospitals doing research on cohorts
> of patients.

I agree completely. And they should need not pay Gold OA fees.

They can just keep publishing in subscription journals and can
also provide Green OA.

But what has not been mentioned in this discussion so far is
publisher embargoes on Green OA.

BMJ is on the side of the angels in this, along with the other
60% of journals that formally recognize their authors' right to
provide immediate, un-embargoed Green OA.

What is holding things up is the publishers that lobby against
Green OA and Green OA mandates (and those publishers
are not limited to the 40% that embargo Green OA!)

Those publishers argue both that Green OA is inadequate
for users' needs and that Green OA mandates will destroy
their business.

The truth is that no one knows whether or not Green OA
will be sufficient for users' needs, but it is certainly
sufficient for users' OA needs.

And if universal Green OA also proves sufficient
for all users' needs, it will not destroy publishing. It will
induce a global transition to Gold OA publishing, as
well as releasing the subscription funds to pay it.

In other words, globally mandated Green OA provides
OA now and may eventually also induce a transition to
Gold OA.

Continuing to do without OA, and to wait instead for
a change in business model funded pre-emptively (and
hence very slowly and incompletely) out of scarce
research funds (as Finch and RCUK have lately been
persuaded to do) is the slowest and most uncertain
road to OA. (We've already been on it for a decade,
and Springer's projections indicate that it won't reach
100% OA till 2029.)
http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2011/06/open-access-by-numbers.html

The hope is that RCUK will now recognize the untoward
consequences of their new policy -- inducing publishers
to offer hybrid Gold and to increase their embargoes to
unacceptable lengths -- and revise their policy to drop
the requirement to choose Gold if it is offered.

If not, all indications are that the EC has recognized the
untoward consequences, and adopted the right Green OA
mandate...

Stevan Harnad