Open Access News

News from the open access movement


Wednesday, March 07, 2007

A critique of the CERN plan for gold OA

John Harnad, Clarifying Open Access: its implications for the research community, Physics World, March 2007.  A letter to the editor.  I don't have a link to the online version and here excerpt the submitted version.  John Harnad is the Director of the Mathematical Physics Laboratory at the Centre de recherches mathématiques in Montréal.  He's also the brother of Stevan Harnad.  Excerpt:

When referring to open access (OA) publishing (January, pp 22--23), it is important to distinguish between two different approaches, sometimes called "Gold" OA and "Green" OA....

“Gold” OA is currently being advocated by Rudiger Voss and others at CERN. Viewed however from beyond the confines of a huge, well-funded, particle physics laboratory, this model may not be in the best interests of the research community. If the objective really is to provide universal access to scientific research, rather than merely finding ways to reduce journal subscription costs, “Green” OA can achieve this quite adequately, without transferring the cost burden to researchers.

Journals must generate revenue by one or more of the following mechanisms: subscription charges, direct support from public or institutional grants, advertising revenues, or page charges to authors. In most areas of physics direct grants to publishers or advertising revenue are not adequately available, so the choice boils down either to "subscriber pays" or "author pays". Relying solely on revenue from paper subscriptions while offering electronic versions for free is not a viable business model since most libraries would simply cancel their paper subscriptions. Gold OA journals therefore have little choice but to transfer the cost burden from subscribers to authors.

This would adversely affect most researchers....

Although some public funding agencies have expressed themselves in favour of OA, none have indicated willingness to increase their total funding to cover such extra expenses.

There is also a mistaken notion that “Gold” OA is more cost effective, because electronic papers are much cheaper to produce and distribute. But this has more to do with advances in technology than the OA model itself....It is also erroneous to expect that savings from libraries canceling paper subscriptions will somehow be passed directly to researchers as compensation for the extra costs imposed on them; the sources of such funding are generally completely distinct. Finally, the scientific quality of journals switching to the author-pays model may be adversely affected....

The ideal of open access can largely be achieved, however, simply by encouraging deposit of all publications in freely accessible archives. Naturally, such archives do not provide quality assurance through peer-review nor guarantees of long term preservation. But the parallel existence of “Green” OA journals with publicly accessible archives provides both, while making the results of scientific research universally available.

Comments.

  1. “Green” OA can achieve [OA] quite adequately, without transferring the cost burden to researchers.  True.  But under the CERN plan, there would be no burden to researchers either.  Journals in particle physics would convert from TA to OA, and the institutions that formerly paid subscriptions would thereafter pay author-side publication fees.  Authors themselves would pay nothing.
  2. Journals must generate revenue by one or more of the following mechanisms.... This short list oversimplifies the situation.  The majority of OA journals charge no author-side fees and we don't know much about what business models they use instead.  But we do know that some receive direct or indirect institutional subsidies, and some generate revenue from a separate line of non-OA publications, auxiliary services, membership dues, endowments, reprints, or a print or premium edition.  None of these revenue sources appears on JH's short list.
  3. In most areas of physics...the choice boils down either to "subscriber pays" or "author pays".  The DOAJ lists 199 peer-reviewed OA journals in physics (excluding astronomy), of which 13 charge no author-side publication fees.  That's about 6.5%, even before the CERN plan takes effect.
  4. Although some public funding agencies have expressed themselves in favour of OA, none have indicated willingness to increase their total funding to cover such extra expenses.  The European Research Council is willing, although I believe its willingness was only made known this week.  The NIH has been willing for years. In any case, the point is moot for the CERN plan, since the publication fees will be covered by the members of the CERN-assembled consortium.
  5. There is also a mistaken notion that “Gold” OA is more cost effective, because electronic papers are much cheaper to produce and distribute. But this has more to do with advances in technology than the OA model itself.  Not true.  Several kinds of savings can be traced to the OA model itself:  OA dispenses with print (or prices the optional print edition at cost), eliminates subscription management, eliminates DRM, eliminates lawyer fees for licenses and enforcement, reduces or eliminates marketing, and reduces or eliminates profit margins.  Also note that one of CERN's findings in June 2006 was that "sponsoring all journals ready for OA at the time of the enquiry would require an annual budget of 5–6 Million €, significantly less than the present global expenditure for particle physics journal subscriptions."
  6. [T]he scientific quality of journals switching to the author-pays model may be adversely affected.  For the case on the other side, see my October 2006 article, Open access and quality.
  7. The ideal of open access can largely be achieved, however, simply by encouraging deposit of all publications in freely accessible archives.  Agreed! 

Update. John Harnad has now self-archived the full-text of his letter.

Update. Stevan Harnad has written a point by point response, sometimes agreeing with his brother, sometimes with me.