Open access peer review
"HARVARD is committed to the policy that ideas or creative works produced at HARVARD should be used for the greatest possible public benefit, and believes that every reasonable incentive should be provided for the prompt introduction of such ideas into public use, all in a manner consistent with the public interest." (Harvard University's Exclusive License Agreement Template)
CyberStrategy for Harvard, for Universities, for the Net
"Open Access Peer Review" is an organizational form for producing, vetting and distributing knowledge which will advance the mission of the university. If widely adopted by university faculties throughout the world it will contribute to the creation of a common wealth of knowledge open to the developing as well as the developed world. Wide appreciation among the universities of the world for the benefits of sharing in creation of and access to a common wealth of knowledge will serve to protect the Net by ensuring the support of the universities of the world perhaps strong enough to offset the growing pressure from governments and corporations to limit its open connectivity..
Strategy for the Berkman Center
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School is moving, institutionally speaking, to become a center of the University. Our method for introducing ourselves to the university is to assume as our immediate mission supporting and amplifying the work and recommendations of Stuart Shieber's Committee with respect to Open Access Peer Review.
GOOGLE BOOK SETTLEMENT
- question tool
- durham statement
OPEN COURSEWARE - Anne Margulies
This interview or ANNE MARGULIES was conducted on March 1, 2007, by Charles Nesson, assisted by Arthur Lewis. Anne Margulies, Executive Director of MIT's OpenCourseWare was accompanied by Steve Carson, External Relations Director for MIT OpenCourseWare.
ANNE MARGULIES: This could be a critical juncture for Harvard to be thinking with new open minds. Let me just start with Open Courseware, but thatâs only a part of the picture.
Even though Open Courseware was originally envisioned to be a public service initiative for MIT, one of the greatest things about Open Courseware is that it has had some wonderful benefits for MIT. One of the benefits: we really clarified the whole intellectual property regimen at an MIT. For the first time with Open Courseware it was made very clear that the course materials that are created in MIT belong to the faculty member. We get permission from the individual faculty member to publish course materials on our site. The faculty member grants to MIT a nonexclusive license to publish them on the web. We use the Creative Commons non-commercial license on our site. This approach to intellectual property ownership was really a pivotal and very strategic decision that MIT made, which the administration and faculty made together. The idea to give away the materials came from a faculty committee. The administration liked the recommendation and embraced the idea of making shared knowledge as a public good. They went around department by department and tried the idea out on the faculty. MIT is different from Harvard in being a more unified faculty. MIT faculty see themselves as belonging to the MIT community. Here at Harvard I think faculty think of themselves first as belonging to their school, and then maybe the university. The process of engaging Open Courseware engaged the entire MIT faculty, about 1000 faculty members, in these department meetings. They considered and formed a general consensus that the faculty believed it was a good idea. MIT then went forward with OpenCourseWare as an institutional initiative. It still is voluntary. Each and every faculty member decides whether or not they want their materials out, and they decide whether or not they want their course videotaped and whether they want their videos out.
CHARLES NESSON: Suppose I am a faculty member and I want my course videoed, what rules do I have to follow?
ANNE MARGULIES: First, we do worry a lot about making sure that we don't infringe on anyone else's copyright, so you as a faculty member, if your intention is to publish it openly on the web through us, will work with us to make sure that you are not inadvertently putting in your videotape other people's copyrighted materials, showing movie clips that we don't have permission for and things like that. You need to make sure that we really have permission for what goes up openly on the web. Second, we protect the privacy of students. At your first class of the semester, you will announce to the students that it is going to be videotaped. If students don't want to be part of the videotape, there is a special part of the room where they can sit so as not to be on a camera. We were counseled that we need not get special permissions for studentsâ voices off camera.
CHARLES NESSON: Is there concern that students will stop coming to videotaped classes?
ANNE MARGULIES: Some students never attend the class and still don't go to class. We conducted a survey. 113 of the 990 faculty responded, and 94 percent said there was no change in class attendance, so itâs very minimal if at all when it happens.
CHARLES NESSON: Have you seen positive results from faculty videotaping their classes?
ANNE MARGULIES: It is hard to tease that out from the overall benefits that we have seen from having the whole site available, but I think much of the same applies. Students are more effectively able to review topics that they studied in previous classes. They can now go back and review material. Faculty have to think about what they might do differently in the class. If everything is available online they can assign students to watch the videotape and use the classroom time differently and more interactively.
CHARLES NESSON: What uptake have you had from faculty on videotaping or audio taping classes, as opposed merely to putting their syllabus up?
ANNE MARGULIES: Out of our 1800 courses we have published 1550. Of the 1550, 21 have the full video lectures. We also have exemplary lectures for a number of others. We have in total about 1000 video hours that we have published. Itâs expensive for us to videotape, then to digitize and put it on the web for streaming, so we are relatively selective about what we publish.
We surveyed faculty to gauge their concern about MIT lecture video. 75% of responding faculty were comfortable with MIT publishing a majority of courses in video. When you ask the faculty would you be comfortable with having your own course published that number drops to 50 percent, so about half of the faculty report that they would be willing to have their course videotaped. When the rubber meets the road it gets smaller. Typically what they say a couple of months ahead of time is, yeah great. Then as it gets closer they say do it next semester instead of this semester, but the interesting thing about the push off is that the faculty member then sharpens the content to prepare for videotaping.
CHARLES NESSON: As you describe it, the impetus for doing videotaping comes from the administration to the faculty, and the faculty member is in the position of deciding do I want to become a star or not?
ANNE MARGULIES: We have examples of both. Some faculty come to us and want to be videotaped, but they are not beating down our door by any means.This attitude has changed over the last several years. Three years ago when we started publishing video lectures, I went out and met with all the department heads because some felt that video publication was a significant and maybe inappropriate expansion in the scope of OpenCourseWare. They just had in mind the materials, and not really sharing with the world whatâs happening in the classroom. Three of three and a half years ago when I went around and individually talked with department heads, I got a pretty negative response. Most of the department heads said this is a slippery slope we did not sign up for. If you start opening whatâs inside the classroom, maybe itâs giving away too much. The survey was surprising to us, showing that attitudes have been changing in MIT. Many of the faculty reservations of three and a half years ago have now really gone away. And those survey results are almost two years old now. The survey was done in fall of 2005, so I think the stance is now probably even more permissive.
CHARLES NESSON: You said 75 percent, what was the 75 percent, figure again.
ANNE MARGULIES: 75% are comfortable with our site publishing video for a majority of the courses. 75% think this is an appropriate thing for MIT to do.
CHARLES NESSON: So does that mean there was 25 percent, which is a substantial number, who thought it inappropriate?
ANNE MARGULIES: Yes.
CHARLES NESSON: Do you have anyone who feels that they are doing research in the way they are projecting their classes. For example, you came to my CyberOne class: I think of the cyber environment as a rhetorical space in which we can figure out how to educate larger audiences. The challenge is to deliver value to multiple audiences in a way that adds to the experience of the face-to-face audience in the classroom. I totally think of that as research. I am trying to figure out how the cyber space works and how you can teach in it. Is that mirrored at MIT?
ANNE MARGULIES: Thatâs an interesting distinction. I don't think the MIT faculty approached OpenCourseWare as an opportunity for distance learning and educating masses of people so much as they think of it as a platform for discussion of pedagogy and sharing of teaching methods. There are a few faculty who share this interest. John Daller (?) who is a noble prize winning author, has been collaborating on a course about highly visualized culture through images, using the web aggressively to invite others to use and comment on their pedagogy and the method that they are using.
CHARLES NESSON: Why are faculty putting their video up at MIT? Whatâs the payoff for them?
ANNE MARGULIES: Partly the payoff is greater visibility for their work and their expertise. They contribute to their discipline through their research, but now they are able to contribute to the teaching of their discipline by sharing the way that they teach. It helps them to contribute to their discipline in another way. Usually the ones who are interested in being videotaped are the more gifted and the more passionate about teaching. They are getting tremendous fan mail from people all over the world telling them that itâs inspiring. People who hated physics or never understood calculus are thanking them. Itâs very gratifying for the faculty to see that they are having an impact beyond MIT, which I think is similar to what, perhaps, what you described in the way you think about it.
CHARLES NESSON: Yes absolutely.
ANNE MARGULIES: One of the reasons OpenCourseWare has been so successful is because the faculty is not required to do too much. When the faculty agreed with the idea and said yeah itâs a good thing for MIT, it was kind of a conditional agreement. Itâs a good thing for MIT to do as long as it doesn't require me to do very much. Faculty don't feel they have extra time. The biggest limiting factor is faculty time. The fact that we can afford to have in OpenCourseWare a staff that does much of the work for them means that they are happy to share their materials with the world. Then on top of that they get all this wonderful gratitude and these very uplifting messages from people, so they know whatâs making a difference.
CHARLES NESSON: Okay, it makes some sense from the faculty's point of view voluntarily participating. Why does it make sense from MIT's point of view, from a money point of view? Is there a positive money flow from this?
ANNE MARGULIES: No, no there is not a positive money flow. But there are definitely benefits back to MIT for having done this. OpenCourseWare is tremendously popular over the world, so it really has enhanced MIT so much and MITâs reputation. 7 out of our top 10 most popular courses have video, so that the video courses in particular are very, very broadly used, and they have had a positive impact at the institutional level for reputation as well as in admissions. The Open Courseware site is being used extensively at MIT. 35 percent of the freshmen coming in 2005 knew about the site said that it made a difference in the school that they chose to go to. About 71 percent of MIT students use the site for one or more reasons, trying either plan their course of study or to look for materials related to courses they are taking. About 60 percent of the faculty have actually used the site, advising students, improving their own courses, working on the research, or making contacts around the institute. This just never happened before. You would have two professors teaching the same subject in different departments and they just wouldn't know about one another's work. Now with the site they have more visibility within MIT. 40 percent of the alumni actually come to the site to review materials and courses they have taken or keep tabs on a favorite professorâs teaching. All of those uses help to strengthen ties with the alumni.
When President Vest talked about OpenCourseWare democratizing information by making knowledge a public good and making it accessible to everyone whether you could afford to come to campus or not. We have found it is also democratizing MIT within MIT. Itâs breaking down the silos within the institute so that everyone at the institute has access to all of the courses. Thatâs never existed before which is really incredible. Faculty have access to not only what their colleagues are teaching but how their colleagues teach. There is now a much more natural way for best practices to flow from educator to educator, from department to department. People say, oh my school has websites, all my faculty put up websites, but so many of them are restricted to whomever is registered for the course.
And the traffic numbers coming from MIT to the OpenCourseWare site have just been going up and up and up and up over time. It has become an invaluable resource to MIT. Itâs become a program that has generated just incredible pride. Everyone from the faculty to the students to administrators to alumni are so proud that MIT has created this and is doing public good by sharing with the world.
CHARLES NESSON: Have you found difficulty in raising money to support it?
ANNE MARGULIES: Yes. MIT had a distinctive advantage in being the first one to make this bold move, so we got very generous foundation funding. By the time we are done this coming fall, we will have spent $30 million. $30 million is the total cost for creating OpenCourseWare over the last five years. By this fall we will have published all of MITâs 1800 courses on the web, and will have 25 full video courses.
ANNE MARGULIES: This coming November is when we declare victory, when we will deliver what MIT promised, which is putting the entire curriculum on the web for free. It is big, very large scale, very ambitious. Itâs the entire curriculum. To maintain it will cost about $4 million a year, which pays fo running the website, hosting the video, adding about 50 courses a year and refreshing another 150. It is an expensive enterprise, but we are very, very large scale. There are much less expensive ways to do this. There are now over a 100 other universities that are doing this at much smaller scale, just doing OpenCourseWares with their best stuff. We are working on a sustainability plan now because of course the foundations will not support us forever. MIT is going to be partially supporting our continuing operation with a substantial budget line from MIT. We are working on developing support from our alumni. At the outset the alumni hated OpenCourseWare because they didn't understand it. They thought open access was going to devalue their degrees. Now they get it. The alumni are hugely in favor of it.
CHARLES NESSON: Could you break your 30 million down into different categories? I am particularly curious to know how much of it goes to sorting out copyright issues.
ANNE MARGULIES: We just answered that question. It is 37 percent.
CHARLES NESSON: You are kidding.
ANNE MARGULIES: When OpenCourseWare started, MIT assumed we would get sued. There was no way we were not going even inadvertently to infringe on somebody. The publishersâ eyes were on us. All eyes were on us. Because of that we took a very risk-adverse position. We review with the faculty member the content of their course and ask them to identify for us any of the graphs or charts or any other chunks of third-party copyrighted content. Our OpenCourseWare team works with them to get permissions. If itâs a graph or chart, we pull it out and replace it with a new original object that we create and then license openly. All of the content on our site is truly openly licensed. That is a labor intensive process
CHARLES NESSON: You take a very conservative look at fair use.
ANNE MARGULIES: We do not use fair use. Our creative commons license tells anyone who comes to our site that we are giving them permission to use our materials anywhere they want as long as itâs noncommercial, so we are not restricting users to an educational use.
CHARLES NESSON: The other 63 percent of the $30 million?.
ANNE MARGULIES: 25 percent is on our technology, including servers, software for both back end and publishing, plus we us Akami for distribution. The rest is people, people to work with the faculty. We hire brilliant MIT graduates who know the content and know the faculty and they work with. We also have a team in India which does our graphics, all the reformative documents, and some of our back office functions.
CHARLES NESSON: Have you had any particular connection with library at MIT? Is there any sense that you are overlapping function or that their function is reaching out in your direction or anything like that?
ANNE MARGULIES: No overlap. We have collaborated with them in a number of areas. They have helped us create the MediData taxonomy that we use. They have built an archive so that when we update or replace a course, we donât lose the prior version. It is sent to a library archive that we have been linked to. We have had a very positive collaboration, but I don't think there has been any overlap. In fact, our DSpace collaborations have been one of the points of real synergy as we are dropping our archive courses into that system.
ANNE MARGULIES: One of the ways we are hoping to sustain this it will be with hybrid funding that will be partly MIT in a general budget funding, partly appropriate corporate sponsorships that we would recognize on the site, donations made through the site by users, and support from alumni since they love it so much. MIT is committed to sustain it, but we are trying to minimize the amount of money that has to come out of the MIT budget.
ANNE MARGULIES: I think the law school should lead the way for Harvard and decide to develop an Open Courseware. There has been no law content out there yet in Open Courseware. You would be the first of the law schools.
CHARLES NESSON: Law is such a natural. It is so needed. One would think that we could perform considerable public service by teaching what we have to offer about how to moderate and resolve disputes.
ANNE MARGULIES: Absolutely it would be a blockbuster. The Harvard name would draw a lot of attention. No other law schools have gone there. It would enhance Harvard Law School's reputation, and Harvard Law School would get some of those first mover advantages that MIT got.
CHARLES NESSON: And I believe we have just an amazing array of stars on our faculty and in our student body.
ANNE MARGULIES: All of a sudden OpenCourseWare is now catching on in the US. We have had a lot of interest from Michigan State, University of Michigan is working on theirs now. I will make sure you have the invitation list for the next OpenCourseWare Consortium meeting. We are just in our infancy. This is a very unstructured, informal kind of group thatâs been forming, but very, very international.We are having a meeting in Spain in early May. There is a huge number of Chinese and Japanese schools and schools all over Europe who are doing this. We are going to meet in May to talk about how we continue to work together to build this open collective body of high quality materials. The wonderful thing is that these OpenCourseWares are developing in parallel to the Creative Commons license, which is now in so many countries. We have really been able to come together with them.
CHARLES NESSON: Digitally accessible open knowledge is the air of Cyber Space.
ANNE MARGULIES: Right
CHARLES NESSON: Thank you very much for coming to the Berkman Center to give Harvard the benefit of your experience and knowledge.
Stuart Shieber's Committee
The committee members are:
â¢ Terry Fisher, Hale and Dorr Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Harvard Law School, and Director, Berkman Center for Internet and Society
â¢ Dan Hazen, Associate Librarian of Harvard College for Collection Development
â¢ Caroline Hoxby, Allie S. Freed Professor of Economics, Faculty of Artsand Sciences
â¢ Steven Hyman, Provost (ex officio)
â¢ Gary King, David Florence Professor of Government, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and Director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science
â¢ Zak Kohane, Lawrence J. Henderson Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Health Sciences and Technology, Harvard Medical School, and Director of Countway Library of Medicine
â¢ Markus Meister, Professor of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences
â¢ Stuart Shieber (chair), Welch Professor of Computer Science, Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences
â¢ Sid Verba, Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of the Harvard University Library
Stuart Shieber Speaks to Faculty Council
Harvard's Faculty Council hears presentation on OA From the Harvard Crimson report on "yesterdayâs meeting of the Faculty Council --the highest governing body of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences":
- Welch Professor of Computer Science Stuart M. Shieber â81 made a presentation to the Council about reducing the cost of providing scholarly publications in the Harvard libraries. âThe [scholars] are doing the writing, the editing, the reviewing, and theyâre doing the reading,â Shieber said. âThereâs a market failure that has resulted in this system.â Shieber suggested that open-access journals might provide a new option for scholars, although many options are still being discussed. âPrinting and distribution in the day of the Internet can be done in a completely different way,â Shieber said. âAccess can be done at essentially zero marginal cost to anyone.â
Permanent link to this post Posted by Peter Suber at 4/27/2006 11:01:00 AM.
Jonathan Zittrain on open access publication; Peter Suber comments
What form of OA should universities recommend to faculty? Jonathan Zittrain gave his inaugural lecture on April 25, 2006 as Oxford's first Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation. His lecture title: The future of the Internet â and how to stop it. Zittrain argued: âUniversities should encourage or even require their faculties to publish in open access journals and to publish working papers ahead of final drafts, so that their work is not locked up by some journal copyrights which are increasingly testing the budgets of libraries who wish to subscribe.â
Peter Suber comments: I applaud Zittrain for endorsing OA in his inaugural lecture. However, universities should require deposit in OA repositories not publication in OA journals (although they should encourage publication OA journals). (1) There aren't enough OA journals today and there won't be for some time. OA journals can easily grow in size but cannot as easily grow in number or scope. (2) Even when there are enough OA journals and they cover every research niche, a requirement to publish in OA journals would limit the freedom of authors to publish in the journals of their choice. (3) If the goal is OA, then universities needn't steer faculty away from subscription journals, at least when these journals consent to the OA archiving of peer-reviewed postprints, as about 70% of them do today. By contrast, (4) OA repositories are available today; (5) they scale quickly and easily; (6) they are compatible with the survival of conventional journals; and (7) they are compatible with author freedom to submit their work wherever they like. These are the reasons why all the OA mandates by funding agencies (public and private) focus on OA repositories, not OA journals.
Action Proposals and email discussion
stuart shieber, terry fisher and charles nesson met and discussed a strategy for advancing the open access issue at harvard of initiating a discussion leading to a vote of the law faculty on an open access resolution. our discussion led us to a tentative plan of presenting the law faculty with alternative resolutions, one mandatory, one opt-out. the purpose of offering choice is to promote open discussion and true persuasion to open access. the idea is to persuade, not to impose.
- On Apr 25, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Stuart Shieber wrote:
Great discussion today.
In an effort to summarize our discussion today, here is a quick attempt at a policy. The strong version:
"In keeping with the scholarly goals of the Harvard Law School, the faculty agree to the following policy regarding copyright in scholarly articles.
Faculty members grant to the President and Fellows of Harvard College a limited, perpetual, irrevocable worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable license to their scholarly articles for noncommercial distribution such as through an open-access repository. The license for an article takes effect at the time copyright vests in the article. To enable Harvard to prosecute its license, Faculty are required to provide at no charge an electronic copy of the final version of the published article in unsecured Portable Document Format (PDF) within a short period of the article's publication."
Here's the opt-out version:
"In keeping with the scholarly goals of the Harvard Law School, the faculty agree to the following policy regarding copyright in scholarly articles.
Faculty members grant to the President and Fellows of Harvard College a limited, perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable license to their scholarly articles for noncommercial distribution such as through an open-access repository. The license for an article takes effect at the time copyright vests in the article. The license can be revoked at any time before the article is published in a journal, conference proceedings, or equivalent venue by individual prior written notification to the Dean of the Law School. To enable Harvard to prosecute its license, Faculty are [required/expected] to provide at no charge an electronic copy of the final version of the published article in unsecured Portable Document Format (PDF) within a short period of the article's publication."
From: William Fisher
Option 1: Harvard Law School is committed to disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible. In keeping with that commitment, the Faculty agrees to abide by the following policy: Each Faculty member shall grant to the President and Fellows of Harvard College a nonexclusive, irrevocable, transferrable license to reproduce and distribute for noncommercial purposes throughout the world each of his or her published scholarly articles. The policy shall apply to all scholarly articles with respect to which the faculty member has not, as of this date, entered into incompatible licensing or assignment agreements. To assist the university in exercising the license, the faculty member shall, soon after the publication of an article, provide at no charge to the appropriate representative of the Provost's Office an electronic copy of the final version in unsecured Portable Document Format (PDF) or in such other format as the Provost's office shall in the future designate. The Provost's Office will then make the article available to the public in an open-access repository.
Option 2: Harvard Law School is committed to disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible. In keeping with that commitment, the Faculty agrees to abide by the following policy: Each Faculty member shall grant to the President and Fellows of Harvard College a nonexclusive, irrevocable, transferrable license to reproduce and distribute for noncommercial purposes throughout the world each of his or her published scholarly articles -- unless, prior to publication, the faculty member notifies the Dean of his or her intention not to grant such a license. The policy shall apply to all scholarly articles with respect to which the faculty member has not, as of this date, entered into incompatible licensing or assignment agreements. To assist the university in exercising the license, the faculty member shall, soon after the publication of an article, provide at no charge to the appropriate representative of the Provost's Office an electronic copy of the final version in unsecured Portable Document Format (PDF) or in such other format as the Provost's office shall in the future designate. The Provost's Office will then make the article available to the public in an open-access repository.
Option 3: Harvard Law School is committed to disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible. In keeping with that commitment, the Faculty agrees to abide by the following policy: Each Faculty member shall grant to the President and Fellows of Harvard College a nonexclusive, irrevocable, transferrable license to reproduce and distribute for noncommercial purposes throughout the world each of his or her published scholarly articles. The policy shall apply to all scholarly articles with respect to which the faculty member has not, as of this date, entered into incompatible licensing or assignment agreements. To assist the university in exercising the license, the faculty member shall, soon after the publication of an article, provide at no charge to the appropriate representative of the Provost's Office an electronic copy of the final version in unsecured Portable Document Format (PDF) or in such other format as the Provost's office shall in the future designate. The faculty member may request that the Provost's Office delay distributing the article for up to one year after publication. Thereafter, the Provost's Office will make the article available to the public in an open-access repository.
Solution: Automatic License Each Faculty member grants to the President and Fellows of Harvard College permission to make available his or her scholarlhy articles for noncomercial purposes and to authorize others ot do the same.
RE: New PR Campaign Against Open/Public Access Initiatives
January 31 2007
TO: Directors of ARL Libraries
FROM: Karla Hahn and Prue Adler
RE: New PR Campaign Against Open/Public Access Initiatives
In the last few days, amid growing criticism, broad
attention has been directed to reports of a new public relations campaign sponsored by the Association of American Publishers (AAP) against public access initiatives concerning access to federally funded research and open access generally. Internal publisher documents leaked to reporters show that hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent by publishers to âdevelop simple messages (e.g., public access equals government censorship)â that are aimed at key decision makers.
As news of this campaign spreads, it presents an opportunity
to engage in conversations with members of your campus community concerning the changes to the scholarly communication system and how this may affect scholarly journal publishing. This memo provides talking points to assist you and your staff in working with members of your campus community with regards to the recently disclosed publishers public relations campaign against open/public access initiatives and legislation concerning access to federally funded research.
The story first broke in /Nature/ on January 25, 2007
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/pdf/445347a.pdf) and press coverage of the story continues to expand. Similarly the blogosphere has been lighting up over this discovery.
The AAP, on behalf of its Professional and Scholarly
Publishing Division, (publishers cited in the leaked documents include Elsevier, Wiley and the American Chemical Society) has hired a public relations executive, Eric Dezenhall, to respond to what they perceive as the threat of the growing support for public and open access initiatives. Dezenhall has been characterized as the "pit bull of PR" and according to his website, Dezenhall Resources specializes in crisis management and "are skilled at helping companies play defense in the face of Attorneys General lawsuits, regulatory enforcement, congressional investigations, hostile legislation and other forms of government intervention."
In a memo to the AAP, Dezenhall proposes a campaign to focus
on simple messages such "government [is] seeking to nationalize science and be a publisher." One news article also included an e-mail exchange between the publishers with the comment that "media messaging is not the same as intellectual debate."
In response to the coverage of this new anti-access
campaign, Brian Crawford, Chair, Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division Executive Council and the AAP recently released statements acknowledging that this campaign was underway and stated that "private sector non-profit and commercial publishers serve researchers and scientists by managing and funding the peer review process, disseminating author's work, investing in technology and preserving millions of peer-reviewed articles as part of the permanent record of science."
Statements such as these are puzzling and raise questions
concerning the actual role of publishers in the scholarly communication process. They present opportunities to engage in conversation with faculty, researchers and staff about the changing nature of scholarly communication and the contributions various communities make to the communication process. For example:
â¢ the library community, not the publishing community, has been responsible for the preservation of the record of science.
â¢ peer review is accomplished by members of the Academy.
Below are some of the "simple messages" proposed for the
publishers' campaign against open access/public access to federally funded research and possible responses to them when engaging members of your campus community.
- /Equating public access to federally funded research and/or open access
with the destruction of the peer review system./*
This is probably the most potent misconception â the assertion that only traditional journal publishing practices and business models can provide peer review. The peer review system is rightly seen as the central contribution journals have made to science.
â¢ Peer review is already built into open access journals and to policies concerning access to federally funded research thus showing the fallacy of the predicted demise of peer review.
â¢ The peer review system, based almost completely on the voluntary /free labor of the research community/, is independent of a particular mode of publishing, or business model.
â¢ Publishersâ own studies have found that open access journals are peer reviewed as frequently as comparable subscription journals.
â¢ The existing National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy and legislation concerning access to federally funded research called for submissions from only peer-reviewed journals and "includes all modifications from the publishing peer review process."
â¢ Finally, journal publishers do not create the content they publish, nor do they generally pay authors for that content or compensate reviewers for the time they spend ensuring the quality of published research through their contributions to the peer review process. The Academy supports and provides the peer review.
- /Publishers are âpreserving millions of peer-reviewed articles as part
of the permanent record of science.â/*
The library community, not the publishing community, has historically played the role of steward in preserving the permanent record of science. When JSTOR began digitizing back files of journals, they rapidly discovered that publishers rarely had complete sets of their own journals. Instead libraries served as the reliable source for these important records. Looking forward, libraries are actively maintaining their role in preserving peer reviewed science publications. Cooperative library programs like Ohiolink and the Ontario Council of University Libraries are collecting digital copies of licensed works and assuming full responsibility for their preservation. Third party projects like LOCKSS and Portico rely heavily on libraries for their support and are designed to compensate for the inability of publishers to guarantee ongoing access to their publications.
- /Public access equals government censorship. /*
The logic of this claim is perhaps impossible to parse. The NIH policy, "Enhanced Access to NIH Research Information" only affects NIH grant recipients and is a voluntary policy. The works included under this policy (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-022.html) are deposited in PubMed Central by their authors and made freely accessible unless temporarily embargoed by their authors. PubMed Central is mirrored internationally and is managed by the National Library of Medicine. Public access to federally funded research policies proposed to date have all incorporated embargo periods to protect publishers from any rapid shifts in subscription revenues. PubMed Central includes information resources well beyond those placed on deposit resulting from this new policy. Two key drivers of the NIH policy are to make these federally funded research results widely available and to hold government accountable.
- /The government is seeking to nationalize science and be a publisher./*
This is a specific attack on public access policies
concerning access to federally funded research â existing and proposed. NIHâs public access policy calls for deposit of the final electronic manuscript after peer review and acceptance for publication. Works deposited in response to the policy are published by existing publishers, not the federal government. Proposed public access policies take this approach as well. The main financial contribution the Federal Government makes to science is through research funding. Policies concerning public access to federally funded research allow publishers to continue to benefit tremendously from the pool of content this funded research generates.
Legislation proposing to extend NIH-like access policies to
other Federal agencies was introduced in 2006. Neither the legislation nor the NIH policy in any way affects peer review or the "quality, sustainability or independence of science," (AAP Statement). Instead, these existing and proposed policies contain provisions protecting journals and the peer review process while improving access to publicly funded research.
- Next Steps:*
Important questions face researchers, their funding bodies,
research institutions, libraries and publishers. Where these questions are discussed honestly on the basis of their own merits, there is the best opportunity to develop systems and strategies that fully leverage societyâs investments in advancing knowledge and researchersâ efforts to create and apply new knowledge. Focusing on real risks and needed changes rather than defending established interests in the wake of change opens the path to meaningful dialog.
We will continue to encourage informed dialog on these
issues and actively promote open access models and policies promoting public access to federally funded research. Please let us know if there is additional information that we can provide.
Berlin Declaration on Open Access
Peter Suber's Open Access Overview
Peter Suber's Open Access Blog
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Recent workshop on the "information commons" organised by UNESCO, OECD & related organisations
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP)
Benkler on OA
How to fund open access journals
Open Access or Differential Pricing for Journals: The Road Best Traveled? by David Stern]
RCUK Analysis of data on scholarly journals publishing
proposed.copyright.policy.scsc.12.05.pdf The UC proposal is available at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/scsc/ proposed.copyright.policy.scsc.12.05.pdf
other reports are http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/scsc/ reports.html listed] at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/scsc/ reports.html
especially an interesting set of SCSC.ExternalReviews.0206.pdf commentaries on the UC reports
The SPARC addendum is available at http://www.arl.org/sparc/author/addendum.html notes
the complement of the space constraining open access is precisely the distortion that copyright is placing on university