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