On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 brs4 at lehigh.edu wrote:
> If it is true that almost all high energy physics publications are accessible
> in arxiv, then yes, this is a de facto, but not full-fledged, version of the
> subscription overlay model.
It is interesting how familiar and long-standing facts -- conventional
subscription journals plus authors self-archiving their articles --
can be reinterpreted as supporting untested and unimplemented hypothetical
"models".
> This also remedies the need that the green self-archivers see for
> institutional and government mandates of their model. The strength of
> the subscription overlay is that it already in effect "mandates" OA, by
> building OA into the very execution of the publishing model.
And here we have problems solved by hypothetical fiat: The fact is that we have
conventional journals, and only 15% of their authors are self-archiving. The
institutional self-archiving mandate is meant to get the rest the
remaining 85% to do it. But no need: Brian's "overlay model" has already
solved that problem! (Now all we need to do is get his "model" adopted by the
95% of non-OA publishers: Mandate it?)
> "Interestingly, aren't the physics societies right now partially committed to
> something like a de facto subscription overlay model, in that many physics
> peer-reviewed postprints are being archived on arxiv.org and are therefore
> freely accessible? Why shouldn't the physics societies then just directly
> link to the postprints at arxiv.org, obviating the need for authors to engage
> in... self-archiving
Yes, why shouldn't they? But apparently they have their reasons, because they
don't! Shall we keep on fantasizing that they do, or will? Or should we do
something about getting that remaining 85% OA, at last?
> if physics societies are indeed already engaged in an
> almost de facto variety of the subscription overlay model (even if it is not
> technically so), then why don't they just take the small extra step of
> formalizing the placement of all (100%) publications into archives, the way
> four BMC journals have? The physics publishing community is well-poised to
> lead the way on this model.
Repeating the fantasy will not make it come true.
> maybe physics publishers have thought of this but are
> worried about the ramifications. If they officially make all articles
> available on arxiv, are they worried what this might do to their current
> publishing model(s)?
Perhaps they are not interested in becoming gold (OA) publishers at this time?
(To repeat: The definition of an OA journal is that it makes all of its own
contents OA. The cost-recovery model is not part of the definition of and OA
journal.)
> Even if most articles for a given area are *all* being archived at an
> institutional repository, the subscription overlay removes a significant
> redundancy in Harnad's approach, which relies on authors to self-archive their
> work. To wit, the publisher does this for them
It certainly would remove a significant redundancy if all publishers were ready
and willing to become OA publishers at this time. But they are not.
Nor are *all* articles being self-archived: just 15%.
None of this can be changed by spinning hypotheses from an armchair.
> I've mentioned that there are working examples of the model I
> mentioned, so this is hardly an engagement in speculation (or, to quote
> Harnad, to engage in "hypothetical" reasoning.) The four BMC examples may not
> be the only ones.
BMC journals are gold, OA journals (author-institution-pays). Such journals are
(trivially, and by definition) "overlays" on wherever their articles are archived.
So what is the point being made here?
Stevan Harnad
