If you need any more incentive to publish a paper in an Open Access manner if you have a choice - here is one. If you publish in a closed access journal of some kind, it is likely fewer and fewer colleagues will be able to get your paper as libraries are hurting big time and will be canceling a lot of subscriptions.
He's absolutely right.[1] Eisen refers to a statement from his own university's library (UC Davis), describing a major review and cancellation process. Charles Bailey has compiled public statements from seven ARL libraries (Cornell, Emory, MIT, UCLA, UTennessee, UWashington, Yale) about substantial cuts to their budgets. My own university will be experiencing substantial collections budget cuts in addition to major layoffs following on from the Harvard endowment drop of 30%. The Harvard libraries are not being spared.
The ARL has issued an open statement to publishers about the situation on behalf of their membership, 123 premier academic libraries in North America. They note that in addition to 2009 cancellations, "Most member libraries are preparing cancellations of ongoing commitments for 2010."
Now more than ever, academic authors need to take responsibility for making sure that people can read what they write. Here's a simple two-step process.
As budgets get cut and cancellations mount, fewer and fewer people will be able to read (and benefit from and appreciate and cite) your articles unless you make them accessible.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](/assets/2009/07/reblog_e.png?x-id=6afd1075-881b-4231-bc25-653564079fa9)
"You can always tell a Harvard man...
but you can't tell him much."
— Source unknown
In the abecedary Harvard A to Z, in the entry under "Deans", the story is told that "a president of the University of Virginia once received a letter requesting a university speaker for an alumni club meeting. To the club's request that he not designate anyone lower than a dean, the president is alleged to have replied that there was no one lower than a dean."
Why do deans get no respect? The reason, of course, is that the deanship is by reputation the quintessential position of responsibility without authority. You are in charge of a faculty who do what they will, not what you would have them. The phenomenon is sometimes referred to as "academic freedom".
I bring this up in the context of questions about "open-access mandates".
I haven't seen it discussed anywhere, but it seems that the Institute of Education Sciences in the Department of Education is now requiring its funded research be made openly available through the ERIC repository. The policy looks analogous to that of the NIH. The pertinent clause from the current IES Request for Applications is:
Recipients of awards are expected to publish or otherwise make publicly available the results of the work supported through this program. Institute-funded investigators should submit final, peer-reviewed manuscripts resulting from research supported in whole or in part by the Institute to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC, http://eric.ed.gov) upon acceptance for publication. An author's final manuscript is defined as the final version accepted for journal publication, and includes all graphics and supplemental materials that are associated with the article. The Institute will make the manuscript available to the public through ERIC no later than 12 months after the official date of publication. Institutions and investigators are responsible for ensuring that any publishing or copyright agreements concerning submitted articles fully comply with this requirement.
Thanks to John Collins of Harvard's Graduate School of Education for bringing this to my attention.
A strange social contract has arisen in the scholarly publishing field, a kind of "don't ask, don't tell" approach to online distribution of articles by authors. Publishers officially forbid online distribution, authors do it anyway without telling the publishers, and publishers don't ask them to stop even though it violates contractual obligations. What happens when you refuse to play that game? Read on.
The Harvard Graduate School of Education has just released its official announcement of their June 1 enactment of an open-access policy, following the approach of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Law School, and Kennedy School of Government, as well as the Stanford University School of Education.
Four down, six(ish) to go.
Hal Daume at the NLP blog bemoans the fact that "there is too much to review and too much garbage among it" and wonders "whether it's possible to cut down on the sheer volume of reviewing".
Are green and gold open access independent of each other? In particular, is worry about gold OA a waste of time, and are expenditures on it a waste of money? Stevan Harnad has brought up this issue in response to a recent talk I gave at Cal Tech, and in particular my remarks about a potential "open access compact". I will take this opportunity to explain why I think that the answer to both questions is "no".
Recently, the representative of a major scientific journal publisher expressed to me the sentiment that the position that Harvard faculty have taken through our open-access policies — setting the default for rights retention to retain rights by default rather than to eschew rights by default — is in some sense unfair to subscription-based journals that require embargoes, that we are favoring one scholarly publishing business model over another and setting up an unlevel playing field.
One of the frequent worries I hear expressed about open-access policies such as the ones at Harvard is that they will lead to the death of journals (or of scholarly societies, or of peer review). When we first began addressing Harvard faculty on these issues, I heard this worry expressed so frequently that I wrote up my standard reply to save myself time in answering it. I supply that reply in this entry. There is little original in the argument. It has been made in various forms in various places in writings about open access, most notably and comprehensively by Peter Suber here . But it may be useful to see it in this distilled form.
In the popular conception, open-access journals generate revenue by charging publication fees. The popular conception turns out to be false. Various studies have explored the extent to which OA journals charge publication fees. The results have been counterintuitive to many, indicating that far fewer OA journals charge publication fees than one might have thought. You can verify this yourself using some software I provide in this post.
I very occasionally hear expressed a concern about the Harvard open-access policy that it violates some aspect of academic freedom. The argument seems to be that by granting a prior license to Harvard, faculty may be forced to forgo publication in certain venues. Our rights as scholars to determine the disposition of particular articles would thus be assailed by the policy.
I assume that readers of the open access discussions on this blog are familiar with the state of play in the area, but just in case, here's some background.
This blog presents occasional writings on whatever I'm interested in at the moment, which currently includes topics such as:
I expect that in the near term, I'll primarily be commenting on open access issues.
I've avoided having a blog until now because in the past I've been constitutionally incapable of presenting my thinking in any kind of interim state. This blog is my attempt to change this archaic aspect of my personality, and to provide a venue for writings of a more exploratory or ephemeral nature. Still, I expect many posts will be relatively long as compared to a typical blog, though short compared to a scholarly article and more topical.
I chose the word "pamphlet" to describe these writings, as I was inspired to experiment with this style of writing by the pamphlets of Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll). The use of the word "occasional" under both of its first two senses was intentional.
The opinions expressed here are my own. I am not speaking on behalf of Harvard or any of its constituent parts, or on behalf of anyone else for that matter.
"Besides getting more data, faster, we also now use much more sophisticated learning algorithms. For instance, algorithms based on logistic regression and that support vector machines can reduce by half the amount of spam that evades filtering, compared to Naive Bayes." (Emphasis added.)
— Joshua Goodman, Gordon V. Cormack, and David Heckerman. 2007. Spam and the ongoing battle for the inbox. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, volume 50, number 2, page 27.
[Update 4 June 2011: I've commented further on the benefits and pitfalls of copyediting, with discussion of this example, here.]
A common source of run-on sentences is the inclusion of a parenthetical full sentence at the end of another sentence, for instance,
This is an example (there may be others).This construction is always wrong. Separate the two sentences, as
This is an example. (There may be others.)or coordinate or subordinate the two, as
This is an example (though there may be others).or
This is an example (and there may be others).The following is not correct:
This is an example (however, there may be others).“However” is an adverb, not a subordinating conjunction.