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]