From: Colin Steele <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 00:04:50 +0000
Last week a friend in the UK sent me the following comment, “The major fuss
brewing here is over the proposed implementation (by universities) of the
Harvard model as the scholarly communications licence. It seems, according
to the publishers, that the end of the world will come if this happens. I
hadn't noticed the end of the world happening in the US because of Harvard”.
I must admit I had not really been across this debate which is clearly
hotting up in UK. While this topic initially may seem remote to some US
readers of this list, the debate raises yet again fundamental issues
regarding scholarly communication in the 21st century and whether we are
still locked, while clearly in digital access mode, in 20th century
historical print paradigms, metrics and pricing.
The UK license debate can be seen in the University of Glasgow background
document at https://frontdoor.spa.gla.ac.uk/committees/inf/LC/Papers/
<https://frontdoor.spa.gla.ac.uk/committees/inf/LC/Papers/UK%20Scholarly%20Communications%20LicenceBriefingPaper.pdf>
UK%20Scholarly%20Communications%20LicenceBriefingPaper.pdf
<https://frontdoor.spa.gla.ac.uk/committees/inf/LC/Papers/UK%20Scholarly%20Communications%20LicenceBriefingPaper.pdf>
There is a lot of background on the web . See for instance the recent
Scholarly Kitchen blog by Karin Wulf at https://scholarlykitchen.
<https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/26/missing-target-uk-scholarly-communications-license/>
sspnet.org/2017/07/26/missing-target-uk-scholarly-communications-license/
<https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/26/missing-target-uk-scholarly-communications-license/>
. Note the contrasting commentary views after Karin's viewpoint, especially
the response by Dr Torsten Reimer, Head of Research Services, The British
Library. Peter Suber also posted his comments to clarify the Harvard
situation, which are copied below.
Rather than identifying librarians as the problem, as Wulf occasionally
does, she would have been better, taking a wider perspective of scholarly
communication issues and background. Librarians are often caught between
faculty pressure and sophisticated publisher lobbying of governments and
research bodies. Some would argue that the OA debate in UK went awry when
the Dame Janet Finch committee in 2012, arguably influenced by
multinational publishers on the committee, recommended the gold open access
approach, specifically for articles, but Finch did not provide a framework
for long-term redistribution of university library subscriptions in order
to fund those payments. In that context, Dr Danny Kingsley at Cambridge
University Library, has identified some of the issues and problems in
double dipping article payment, record-keeping and compensation that have
flowed post Finch. The debate will undoubtedly continue globally. Best Colin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join
[https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8tJ3z9IrygA/AAAAAAAAAAI/
AAAAAAAAnes/XrRG2LpBW5c/s45-p-k-no/photo.jpg]<https://plus.google.com/
109377556796183035206>
Peter Suber<https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206>
Public
Jul 28, 2017<https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/ZeHjk1v5vCS>
Correcting the record on the Harvard OA license.
Yesterday at the Scholarly Kitchen, Karin Wulf and Simon Newman posted some
objections to the UK Scholarly Communications License, which is based on
the Harvard OA license.
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/07/26/missing-target-uk-scholarly-
communications-license/
In the process they characterized the Harvard OA license and OA policies,
sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly.
----------
Here are a few comments on what the authors have said about the Harvard OA
policies. I leave comments on the UK-SCL for another time.
When Wulf and Newman first refer to the Harvard OA license, they link to
the Harvard repository terms of use. That's confusing. The Harvard OA
license is embodied in the OA policies, not the repository terms of use.
These are separate and complementary.
For the language of the Harvard OA license, see (for example) the language
of the policy from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences or the Harvard model OA
policy.
https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/policies/fas/
https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/modelpolicy/
> "There is no evidence that the so-called Harvard model is widespread or
that it may become so...."
This doesn't matter to the merits of the Harvard model and even less to the
merits of the UK-SCL. But for the record the Harvard model has been adopted
by at least 70 institutions in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.
https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/Additional_resources#Policies_of_the_kind_
recommended_in_the_guide
> "First, the Harvard model is more of a statement of institutional
preference than a directive, and it is entirely voluntary on the part of
academic staff who are not compelled to participate...."
It helps to be more careful here. The authors' statement is true in three
senses: (1) faculty were not compelled to vote for the OA policies; (2)
once adopted by vote, the waiver option in each policy lets faculty members
decide for or against OA for each new article, with the default favoring
OA; and (3) although the policies include a commitment to deposit a certain
version of each new article in the repository, there is no penalty for
non-deposit. But the statement is untrue in another sense: (4) the Harvard
OA policies have legal consequences, and are not just statements of
institutional preference. By voting up the policies, faculty granted the
university a certain set of nonexclusive rights.
> "Some [members of the Harvard History Department] may have requested
waivers for all of their articles."
There are two ways to read this, one certainly false and the other probably
false. (1) It might mean that one waiver can cover all of an author's
future articles, and that some members of the History Department have
requested this kind of standing waiver. That is untrue. The Harvard OA
policies only allow article-by-article waivers, not standing waivers.
Faculty who want waivers for separate articles must obtain them separately.
(2) It might mean that some faculty in the Department have made separate
waiver requests for each of their articles. That's possible but not likely.
The highest number of waivers requested by any member of the Department is
very low.
(I'm taking the authors' claim in its strongest form, and disregarding the
fact that they say some Harvard historians "may" have done this, not that
any actually have done it.)
The authors say that the Harvard repository terms of use are "similar to a
CC-BY-NC-ND license." I suppose that's true. But if so, it's equally true
that the terms are dissimilar to a CC-BY-NC-ND license. The terms permit
some but not all commercial use (differing from NC licenses), and some but
not all derivative works (differing from ND licenses). If the authors'
point was that these terms differ from the straight CC-BY-NC license used
by the UK-SCL, that's true.
Finally, commenter Siloh says, "The Harvard model is 'ignored' by top
scientists at Harvard because it restricts choice and the freedom to choose
where to publish their work, i.e., prevents them from publishing in the
most prestigious journals in their subject area (knowledge gained directly
from two Harvard Profs)."
I have no doubt that some faculty ignore the policies. But the policies do
not restrict the freedom of faculty to choose where to publish their work.
There are two kinds of misunderstanding on this front. (1) Some covered
authors believe that the policies require them to publish their new
articles in OA journals. That belief is untrue, and even a superficial
reading of the policies shows it to be untrue. This misunderstanding
reflects the tenacious background assumption that all OA is gold OA, or
that the only way to make an article OA is to publish it in an OA journal.
This kind of misunderstanding is common to all green policies, not just to
Harvard-style green policies. (2) Some covered authors overlook or
undervalue the waiver option. This option assures the freedom of faculty to
choose where to publish their work, and was incorporated into the policies
precisely to assure this freedom. This was well-explained at the time of
each faculty vote, which is why faculty voted for the policies (at four
Harvard schools by unanimous votes), and it's well-explained in all our
published material on the policies.
The Harvard repository has more than 39,000 deposits, the vast majority
from scientists, who are no slouches at publishing in the journals of their
choice.
#oa<https://plus.google.com/s/%23oa> #openaccess<https://plus.
google.com/s/%23openaccess>
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
See also the lengthy piece by Chris Banks, the Director of Library Services
at Imperial College London, posted on July 7, responding to issues raised
by the Publishers Association.
https://www.slideshare.net/chrisabanks/scholarly-
communications-model-policy-and-licence-publishers-
association-concerns-together-with-ukscl-steering-group-responses
---------------------------------------------
Colin Steele
Emeritus Fellow
ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences
The Australian National University
Room 3.31, Beryl Rawson Building #13
Acton, ACT, 2601
Australia
P: + 61 2 6125 8983<tel:+61%202%206125%208983>
E: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
|
