From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:04:08 -0600


And where will the money to fund Gold OA journal publishing come from?
If fees are supported by state universities, then some of it at least
will come from--taxpayers!

Sandy Thatcher


> From: FrederickFriend <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:22:40 +0000
>
> Alicia has been very frank in her explanation of Elsevier's position
> vis-a-vis NIH and we should thank her for that. However, once you set
> the Elsevier/NIH situation into the larger environment of scholarly
> communication, the picture we see looks very different from that
> painted by Alicia. Firstly, the "modest reduction of usage (by
> subscribers) and transactional sales (for non-subscribers)" has to be
> set against the fact that the bulk of Elsevier's income and very high
> profits (from licensing to libraries) has been unaffected by the NIH
> mandate. The "modest reduction" could be seen as no more than a small
> sign of the operation of normal market economy competition in what is
> a very uncompetitive (for purchasers) market. Elsevier can afford to
> take much more competition before its profits reduce to a more normal
> level.
>
> Secondly, on the charge that PMC is "using taxpayer funds to duplicate
> publishing efforts and depriving publishers of revenue for their
> investments", the investment that publishers make is very small by
> comparison to the investment made by taxpayers and the academic
> community. In the bigger picture taxpayers are paying for the research
> on which publishers build their business, and the value publishers add
> - primarily in editing and in quality control - itself contains a
> substantial contribution in time and money from peer reviewers and
> their institutions. The "modest reduction" being experienced by
> Elsevier could - in the bigger picture - be seen as no more than a
> recognition by Elsevier that their publishing efforts are very
> dependent upon this contribution unfunded by their shareholders.
>
> We now have a much clearer picture of the overall costs and benefits
> of scholarly communication through journal publishing. New
> technologies and new business models are opening up new possibilities
> for a better return upon taxpayers' investment. The private sector has
> an important role in these developments and I welcome Alicia's
> assurance that Elsevier "want to work closely with NIH colleagues to
> shape a shared way forward". What concerns me about Elsevier's
> approach to new models such as gold open access is that the company
> shows no sign of reducing their dependence upon the old model of
> licensing to libraries in order to switch to new models.
> Publicly-funded institutions cannot afford to pay twice for
> toll-access and for open access.
>
> Fred Friend
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
>
> -----Original Message----- From: LIBLICENSE
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:41 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Elsevier, PMA, and RWA
>
> From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:51:55 +0000
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am very happy to explain further how it is possible for Elsevier to
> be both positive about PubMed Central and the Research Works Act.
>
> Elsevier participated in the voluntary NIH posting policy before the
> NIH mandate was enacted.  We continue to post on behalf of our
> authors, despite increasing concern over the uniform 12 month embargo
> period and a principled objection to government-imposed mandates.
> What the Research Works Act would do is end the mandate that requires
> the free posting of content that has been invested in and improved
> upon by publishers, unless they agree to that posting. The Research
> Works Act would not end our desire to work in partnership with NIH,
> but would give us all more flexibility to negotiate sustainable
> models.
>
> We have specific concerns about the NIH mandate which at best is
> overly rigid/onerous, and at worst actually damaging. Early
> indications show the NIH Public Access Policy has had a negative
> impact on Elsevier and other publishers.  We have experienced a modest
> reduction of usage (by subscribers) and transactional sales (for non
> subscribers) for articles on our publishing platform after they are
> placed on PubMed Central even with links to the published journal
> article.  The NIH policy has only been in effect a few years and so
> these early warning signs are important:  they indicate usage and
> revenue loss could increase over time as the content duplicated in PMC
> increases.   This early evidence also suggests that PMC is providing
> access to users already served by the publishing system - essentially
> using tax payer funds to duplicate publisher efforts, and depriving
> publishers of revenue for their investments.  The current NIH public
> access policy therefore seems neither efficient nor sustainable.
>
> So if the RWA were enacted how might Elsevier work with PubMed
> Central?   Well, we would of course want to work closely with NIH
> colleagues to shape a shared way forward.  Elsevier already works
> successfully with an array of other funding bodies (for an overview of
> these agreements see www.elsevier.com/fundingbodies) on sustainable
> solutions.  The models can include gold open access publishing,
> whereby publication is funded by an article processing charge paid by
> the author or another sponsor such as a funding body.  Gold open
> access provides one approach toward our shared goal of expanding
> access to peer-reviewed scientific works and maximizing the value and
> reuse of the results of scientific research.  Another option is green
> open access where manuscripts are made publicly available via
> repositories after a title-specific embargo period.  With some
> funders, for example the Wellcome Trust, we have successfully blended
> these models and in exchange for a gold open access publishing fee we
> also deposit a sponsored version of the article into UK PubMed
> Central.  We feel the Wellcome Trust model is a good one, and
> represents a win for author, funder, publisher, university, and
> science more broadly.
>
> Elsevier hopes the Research Works Act will stimulate reflection about
> the appropriate role for US government agencies in expanding access.
> We believe that the current mandate is unnecessary and that there are
> better ways to provide access including to taxpayers.  As a company,
> we want to continue to work in partnership with NIH and others to
> achieve our vision for universal access to information. For us, RWA is
> an important bill because it reminds people that collaboration and
> partnership rather than government mandates can be powerful ways to
> widen access to scientific information.
>
> With kind wishes,
>
> Alicia
>
> Dr Alicia Wise
> Director of Universal Access
> Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
> E: [log in to unmask]