Open Access News

Jan Velterop, Nephelokykkygia, The Parachute, October 31, 2006.  Excerpt:

Bill Hooker has written a fine piece on open access. His exposé of the benefits of open access is convincing (not that I needed to be convinced any further). Unfortunately, he does repeat some of the misconceptions that have crept into the debate.

“[Large publisher] won’t let me use their pdf versions…” Duh, as my teenage kids would say. Why would publishers let you? Or the question that should come before that: why did you bother a publisher with your article in the first place?

“Well, if I don’t have it published formally in a journal, then I won’t get the recognition I need for my tenure and future funding prospects” you might be inclined to answer. Right answer! After all, it’s ‘publish or perish’. So, ‘giving away’ your article to a publisher is not entirely without ulterior motives, it seems. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s be honest about it, you are not so much ‘giving away’ anything to a publisher than asking for a service: "please organise for my article to be peer-reviewed and published in the journal whose title will make it worth a lot more for me than the not-formally-published version could ever be."

And what does the publisher get in return for doing that service? Ideally, he should simply be paid for it, after which the formally published article, with the imprimatur that gives it ‘authority’, is as open as you, the author, choose. This concept is known as Open Access Publishing and is now (hooray, finally) offered by many a publisher, large and small, society-linked or independent.

But, as long as there are many authors who like to have the imprimatur and the formal publication, but don’t want to pay for it, it’s offered as an option. For those who don’t wish to pay, there still is the old way of paying, namely by transferring their copyright (or exclusive publishing rights, which amounts to pretty much the same thing)....Many publishers, though, are offering the open access publishing option – so it’s time, dear authors, for you to choose.

Another misconception in Hooker’s piece is “For you as a taxpayer, this means that you are denied access to information you've already paid for (since I've always been funded by government grants).” The publisher doesn’t ‘deny access’ to the information. If anybody does, it’s the author. What stops an author from just posting the research results on some freely accessible repository and let the taxpayer have the benefit he deserves for putting up the money that sustains the author’s research? If he pays the publisher for the service of organising peer-review and attaching the formal imprimatur of a journal to his article, to give it the credibility and certification it needs, then he can also post the formally published pdf anywhere he likes. Payment could come out of the research grant....

Comments. Jan and I agree on a number of points, including the fact that Bill Hooker wrote an excellent piece on OA.  But we also disagree on a few points.

1. I have no objection to publishers who don't permit self-archiving of the published edition, or to funder policies that mandate archiving of the final version of the author's manuscript rather than the published edition. (In fact, I recommend the latter.)
2. Jan is right that many publishers (those offering hybrid OA journals) give authors the choice between OA and TA publishing.  However, he fails to mention that even more publishers give authors blanket permission to self-archive their peer-reviewed postprints.  If author choice is legit in the first case, then author choice is legit in the second.
3. Jan is incorrect to suggest that hybrid OA journals want either payment (for OA dissemination) or transfer of copyright (for non-OA dissemination).  As he knows, most hybrid OA journals want both payment and copyright.  Thanks to his influence, Springer is an exception and lets authors who choose its OA option retain copyright.  But that's far from the default in the industry.  Similarly, it's not true to suggest that most hybrid OA journals let authors post the published PDF, even when they've paid a hefty fee for the OA option.
4. It's a little disingenuous to say that authors, rather than publishers, block access to most publications based on publicly-funded research.  True, most authors still submit their work to subscription-based journals.  But that's because most journals are subscription-based and does not imply that authors wish to limit the impact of their work to those who can afford to pay.  Over 94% of surveyed authors say they are willing to comply with an OA mandate from their funder.  Moreover, no authors lobby against funder OA mandates.  Many publishers do lobby against them and lobby fiercely.
5. One of Jan's recommendations is that funders should be willing to pay the processing fees charged by fee-based OA journals. I agree.  But it doesn't follow that authors should stop OA archiving and limit their pursuit of OA to OA journals.