Questions and Criticisms

Quality control aspect of journals?

The effect on journals, and its implication for scholarship, came up frequently in response to the FAS motion. This view was expressed, among other places, in a New York Times article:

"The publishing industry, as well as some scholarly groups, have opposed some forms of open access, contending that free distribution of scholarly articles would ultimately eat away at journals’ value and wreck the existing business model. Such a development would in turn damage the quality of research, they argue, by allowing articles that have not gone through a rigorous process of peer review to be broadcast on the Internet as easily as a video clip of Britney Spears’s latest hairdo. It would also cut into subsidies that some journals provide for educational training and professional meetings, they say."

Whatever weight this argument carries in the FAS context, it carries little relevance for the Law School context, because almost all law journals have their articles available for free already (see, e.g., the Harvard Law Review). Moreover, the vast majority of law reviews are not peer reviewed, but are instead edited by students. Therefore this criticism - and others predicated on the idea that open access will kill the journals, and do away with the benefits they provide - does not apply in the Law School context.

Will Harvard's Database credit whatever journal originally published the article?

It is unclear exactly what structure the Harvard database will have and what metadata if any will be available in it. However, there are many good reasons for wanting a metadata field (and perhaps having the article in the database state what, if any journal the article was published in). Such information is both beneficial for readers of the article who can use that information to help evaluate the validity and importance of the work in question. Furthermore, this also serves to give appropriate credit to the journals that do a substantial amount of work in editing and polishing the final version of articles.

Effect on opportunities for up-and-coming scholars?

This was a point of contention regarding the FAS motion. As one Yale art history graduate student expressed in the Yale Daily News, "It would be disappointing for those of us just beginning our academic careers to lose the chance to have our early work published and peer-edited by senior scholars."

Harvard History Professor Robert Darnton argued in the Crimson that the Open Access proposal would help young scholars:

"The spiraling cost of journals has inflicted severe damage on research libraries, creating a ripple effect: in order to purchase the journals, libraries have had to reduce their acquisitions of monographs; the reduced demand among libraries for monographs has forced university presses to cut back on the publication of them; and the near impossibility of publishing their dissertations has jeopardized the careers of a whole generation of scholars in many fields."

Like the other FAS-related questions above, these issues presume an economic model of high-cost peer-review journals, which is not the case for law journals. However, there are still potential effects for legal scholars.

On one hand, those professors who are subject to such provisions by their university might have a harder time being published. If the opt-out provisions are seen as too cumbersome, they might discourage a journal from selecting their article in favor of one from a professor at a different University. This effect may be seen in law journals more often than it is at those the FAS policy concerned; the student-run publications may have fewer resources and more time constraints than those that are professionally published.

On the other hand, this could be a great benefit to scholars who are not yet associated with a University, or who are at a school with fewer resources. Their limited access to journals would be mitigated by this policy, and they would have an ability to research prior scholarship that better rivals their peers. When new articles stand "on the shoulders of giants" and build on prior work, this could be a great boon not only to these scholars, but to scholarship in general.

Jeopardize more obscure journals?

This was another concern related to the FAS motion. Harvard Profressor J. Lorand Matory explained to the New York Times that "he sympathized with the goal of bringing down the sometimes exorbitant price of scientific periodicals, but worried that a result would be to eliminate a whole range of less popular journals that are subsidized by more profitable ones."

Again, this worry is not applicable to the law school context, because the premier journals do not depend on restricting access to their articles to make money.

If anything, the publication on the University's website of articles published through lesser-known journals might actually help them by increasing awareness of that journal.

[QUESTION - DO WE KNOW WHETHER UNIVERSITY WILL CREDIT JOURNALS OF PUBLICATION WHEN IT PUBLISHES IN OPEN-ACCESS REPOSITORY?]

What sort of problems would the opt-out system entail?

One difficulty would be presented if a majority of journals require professors to seek exemptions in order to release all copyright to the journals themselves. In this situation, the opt-out policy could effectively undermine the open access proposal by resulting in few articles being released under the University copyright scheme. There could also be a "tipping point" effect whereby journals realizing that most of their peers are opting out of the amended provisions follow suit. However, the converse may also be true; if a majority of journals allow the change, it might encourage more to follow suit.

If most law journals do open access anyway, what does this motion add?

Most of the responses to the criticisms above are based on the argument that law journals are already largely open-access. If that is the case, what does this motion add? Here are a few possible responses.

1. Speed: While most journals publish their contents online, often there is a time-lag, perhaps of several months. If the University receives the articles upon completion, the scholarship can get out there much more quickly.

2. Ease of Access: Having all the Harvard faculty-authored articles in a single searchable database, instead of spread across countless websites, would make it easier and more convenient for readers. [BUT WITH WESTLAW/LEXIS, DOES IT ADD MUCH?]

3. Being a Leader in Open Access: Harvard Law School is uniquely positioned to become a leader in open access to scholarship. When Harvard makes a statement like this, it attracts attention - Library Journal called the FAS Motion "A Shot Heard 'Round the Academic World," and asked "After Harvard, the Open Access Deluge?" This is Harvard Law School's opportunity to throw its considerable weight behind the idea of open access for the benefit of scholars everywhere.

Why is this license irrevocable?

[I don't have a good answer to this question but I think we need one. Kparker 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)]