Publisher support for open access is changing. Do they really support open access philosophically or only to the extent that they can monetize it?
Citation preview
Changes in support for open access: Laudatory or predatory?
Denise Troll Covey Scholarly Communications Librarian Carnegie Mellon University
ICDL 2013
The conference paper associated with this slideshow is available at
http://works.bepress.com/denise_troll_covey/79/
matter
Changes
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Because open access is critical to maximizing the return on investment in research and correcting the dysfunction in scholarly publishing Because changes can either free scholarly work from oppressive pay walls & copyright restrictions or they create barriers to these freedoms
barriers
Removing
Presenter
Presentation Notes
As scholarly communications librarian I’m focused on identifying and removing barriers Removing barriers requires effective advocacy Effective advocacy requires deep understanding I went in search of deep understanding – 2 years
Why? Publishers support
self-archiving,
but oppose
self-archiving mandates
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Research questions – Why support self-archiving but oppose self-archiving mandates? Why change self-archiving policy? How are they changing? How often? Is support for self-archiving disingenuous? Data mining in SHERPA RoMEO database & Internet Archive Wayback Machine Text mining in AAP internal publication (PSP Bulletin) and public discourse, e.g., press releases, legislative lobbying
Trend in levels of support
02004006008001,0001,2001,400
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Apr 0
4
Jun
04
Aug
04
Sep
04
Dec
04
Feb
05
Apr 0
5
Jun
05
Nov
05
Dec
05
Apr 0
6
Jun
06
Sep
06
Oct
06
Nov
06
Jan
07
Feb
07
Mar
07
May
07
Jun
07
Sep
07
Oct
07
Dec
07
Feb
08
Apr 0
8
Jun
08
Jul 0
8
Dec
08
Oct
09
Nov
09
Feb
10
Aug
10
Nov
10
Jun
11
Jul 1
1
Sep
11
Feb
12
Aug
12
Sep
12
Jan
13
May
13
Jun
13
April 2004 June 2013 No support for self-archiving Minimal support: Pre-prints only (before peer review) Post-prints only (after peer review) Full support: Pre-prints and post-prints Total policies
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Start with mining SHERPA RoMEO statistics pages Good news & bad news Good = 70% support OA Bad = full support (green) has declined to 28% would hope higher given 10-year OA movement & proven benefits of OA Is trend due to new policies entering the database?
#1 Publishers are free to change their self-archiving policy & they do
Presenter
Presentation Notes
SHERPA RoMEO browse pages & policy pages Those who have not changed could change in the future
No level is stable
One out of five changed
Often many years later
Mixed messages
Intriguing correlations 2004-2013 709 publishers
Change level of support
Presenter
Presentation Notes
709 publisher dataset – color code changes No level of support is stable 19% changed; Some changed multiple times – 134 publishers made 170 changes 62 % of changes increased support most (67%) of the increases were made by publishers that initially prohibited self-archiving half of the publishers that initially supported self-archiving decreased support Most changes (60%) occurred within 2 years, but changes occurred 3, 4, 5+ years later Increases occur more rapidly than decreases Over half (53%) decreases occurred after 2 years, compared to 33% of increases Mixed messages – increases & decreases occur at the same time (both for-profits & non-profits) Could be responding to different developments or responding differently to the same developmenets Peak periods of change correlate with mandate initiatives (pro and con)
2004-2013 26 publishers
Change policy conditions
Control
version
location
timing
Paid OA
Embargoes
Repositories
Mandates
Presenter
Presentation Notes
26 popular publisher dataset – changes in details Where CMU authors publish most often Conditions in early popular publisher policies indicate efforts to remain relevant, e.g., acknowledge or link to publisher control the published version and, to a lesser extent, the pre-print version Increased efforts to CONTROL VERSION, LOCATION, TIMING in response to new developments By 2007, roughly 60% offered paid OA options and imposed embargoes And more than 80% addressed mandates and repository deposits, often together
#2 For-profit publisher policies are the most unstable, influential & predatory
Presenter
Presentation Notes
For-profits & non-profits behave differently
26 dataset changed dataset
All pubs 50% 100%
Non-profits 29% 65%
For-profits 78% 35%
Unstable
709 dataset changed dataset
All pubs 19% 100%
Non-profits 17% 71%
For-profits 27% 26%
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Changes in LEVEL of SUPPORT 26 popular publisher policies are more unstable than policies in larger dataset Changed more often & more rapidly Popular publishers dataset has greater percentage of for-profits For-profits policies are more unstable than non-profits Popular for-profits are extremely unstable
Influential
709 dataset Changes impacted 10,837 titles 90% published by for-profits
26 dataset Changes by 9 popular for-profit publishers account for 67% of the 10,837 titles
Presenter
Presentation Notes
709 dataset = changes impacted 10,837 journal titles 90% published by for-profits 26 dataset = changes impacted 7,694 titles (71% of 709 dataset titles) 95% published by (9) for-profits
Predatory
Bait & switch
Distort
Complicate
Coerce 2004-2013
26 publishers
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Bait and switch – introduce Gold OA into Green OA policy Offer paid open access (hybrid) option Impose embargo to encourage paid option Distort Embargo only repository deposits to keep green colour code (PR value of full support) Complicate Prohibit deposit in institutional repository Embargo deposit in disciplinary repositories or in all repositories Require prior agreement with repository Coerce Increase embargo to coerce paid OA to comply with mandates Contrast non-profits that offer paid OA – focus on controlling publisher PDF [Peter Suber estimated that nearly 70% of journals listed in the DOAJ do not charge an APC]
“You may
if you wish,
but not
if you must”
– Stevan Harnad’s paraphrase of Elsevier’s policy
#3
Policy changes
reflect changes
in perception
of threats
& opportunities
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Perception of threats & opportunities Text mining in AAP/PSP Bulletin & AAP legislative lobbying Reveals dramatic shift in publisher perception; explains changes in practice
Support
Deter
Oppose
Self-archiving
Association of American Publishers PSP Bulletin
As self-archiving increases, the threat increases
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Support when few self-archive Complicate when repositories proliferate to deter self-archiving Oppose when mandates increase self-archiving Increasing threats to subscription publishing 2003 – Concerns: no copyright transfer, self-archiving, gov’t self-archiving mandates 2006 – OA advocates’ “attacks” on copyright transfer 2007 – Self-archiving, institutional repositories, gov’t self-archiving mandates, open access publishing
Attack
Embrace
Promote
Prey
OA publishing
Association of American Publishers PSP Bulletin
Willingness to pay becomes an opportunity
to exploit
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Threats to subscription publishing Attack 2002 – Author-side pays business models 2005 – Funders willing to pay author-side fees 2007 – Public access mandates will prevent authors from publishing because they cannot afford to pay for open access Embrace 2007 – Funding agencies willing to pay for open access are a new revenue stream Promote 2012 – Public access mandates that allow researchers to fund immediate open access will sustain publishing and researcher choice Prey Double-dipping hybrids Beall’s List of predators
It’s all about
the revenue
stream(s)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
For-profits Fear of loss of subscription revenue stream See authors and funders as new, additive revenue stream – not transition strategy Non-profits Many appear to be serious about transition from subscription to open access publishing CMU APC fund supports ACM hybrids only (to date)
#4
The AAP’s
lobbying aims
at the uninformed
to keep them
uninformed
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Crafted to evade critical inspection The rhetoric of the AAP’s legislative lobbying is clever, arbitrary, manipulative, and effective with those unfamiliar with the benefits of open access and the problems in scholarly publishing. Use strategies they wouldn’t permit the interlocutor to use
Assume facts not in evidence
Scholarly publishing is functioning well
Full copyright transfer is necessary
Embargoes are necessary
Presenter
Presentation Notes
FANTASY Scholarly publishing is a well-functioning system Copyright transfer is necessary to protect authors Embargoes are necessary to avoid cancelled subscriptions & loss of jobs
Force unnecessary choices
Peer review OR open access
Traditional publishing OR government censorship
Healthy publishing & fiscal responsibility OR gov’t intervention & waste
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Association of concepts (2006-2007) Peer review (traditional publishing) OR open access Traditional publishing OR government censorship (open access) Argument of incompatibility (2007-2013) invented embargo to avoid incompatibility Healthy publishing & fiscal responsibility OR gov’t intervention & wasted tax money [Gov’t intervention is unwarranted, unnecessary, inappropriate, ill-considered, & wasteful]
Obfuscate to alarm
Self-archiving mandates will have harmful unintended consequences
Self-archiving mandates undermine copyright, which harms publishing, which harms the economy
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Pragmatic argument (2006-2013) Suppress other causes = dysfunction in scholarly publishing Suppress other effects = maximize return on investment in research Argument of direction The progression is inevitable
Change the basis of argument
Publications are private sector works distinct from author manuscripts
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Dissociation of concepts – sever connection between submitted & published versions Change the basis of argument by changing the conceptual data Publications do not arise from federal funding They provide an independent analysis & interpretation of results funded by grants Use should be compensated Argument of identification - Influence & intervene in the probable use of a term while preserving the system of thought A private sector work is any version of an article intended to be published & to which a publisher has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution Copyright transfer at manuscript submission
Attempt to structure reality
As the bolt of fabric is to the finished suit, the author’s manuscript is to the publication
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Argument from analogy – attempt to structure reality 2007 Yoking unlike things together to assert similar relationships among two sets of terms; dubious because it masks differences “Not compensating the publisher because someone provided the raw material is like not requiring the customer to pay the tailor for the suit because he provided the fabric”
Recap 1. Publishers are free to change
their self-archiving policy & they do
2. For-profit publisher policies are the most unstable, influential & predatory
3. Policy changes reflect changes in perception of threats & opportunities
4. The AAP’s lobbying aims at the uninformed to keep them uninformed
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Those that haven’t changed their policies could change their policies in the future Beware the volatility and shenanigans of for-profit scholarly publishing What is perceived as a threat or opportunity changes over time Initially perceived OA as a threat Discovered they can monetize OA, create new revenue stream Initially perceived OA business model as not viable Now publish OA journals Initially perceived OA megajournals as threat to quality peer review Now starting to publish OA megajournals Critique the AAP’s rhetoric
with deep
understanding
Call to act
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Identify barriers – study the landscape Remove barriers with effective advocacy Effective advocacy requires deep understanding (identification of barriers)
Study for-profit publisher behavior
Lobby for self-archiving mandates
Address Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt (FUD)
Help non-profit publishers transition to open access
Keep fighting the good fight!
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Study for-profit publisher rhetoric & policy changes Lobby for self-archiving mandates Allow embargoes & hybrid APCs only as transition strategy No funding for double-dipping hybrid paid OA options Expose predatory rhetoric & maneuvering; choose appropriate counter-strategies Address FUD = Fear uncertainty & doubt of legislators & researchers In the academy: Educate; address misconceptions Change the reward system to incentivize open access & article-level metrics Cultural agoraphobia = fear of openness Academic Stockholm syndrome = students interpret advice of uninformed advisors/mentors as kindness rather than ignorance & intimidation Help non-profit publishers transition from subscription to open access business models
