Can an Open Access mandate avoid destroying a well functioning publication system?

1. Can an Open Access mandate avoid destroying a well functioning publication system? Jørgen Burchardt The Society of Danish Science Editors jorgen.burchardt@mail.dk www.burchardt.name www.videnssamfundet.dk

2. I am a researcher and editor > 33 years as an editor Experiments with Open Access 1987 (Nordisk Bibliografi for Folkelivsforskning og Nord Nytt) Established the first Danish peer reviewed journal Open Access in 2001 (Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv)

3. Other pioneers in Open Access Anders Geertsen, Munksgaard: First Monday 1996- (present USA) Ugeskrift for Læger 2001 (-2010)

4. Journals - gatekeepers for academic quality researchers readers Editorial process

5. Journals – the quality process researchers readers Editorial process peer review discussions feedback copy editing proofreading imaging lay out digital markup and much more

6. The best editors are necessary for highest quality researchers readers Editorial process

7. Necessary organization researchers readers Editorial process Organisation (publisher)

8. Necessary income subscription researchers readers Editorial process Organisation (publisher)

9. Author-financed Open Access (golden) researchers readers Editorial process Organisation (publisher) One article = 2.000 € (John Houghton)

10. Author-financed Open Access (golden) Is not a solution in humanities and social sciences Example: Historisk Tidsskrift has 25 % authors without a research institution behind them. (unemployed, retired, teachers at high schools, priests) And has many other drawbacks

11. Mandate research council FKK 2008 All articles from supported journals had to be Open Access within a year after publication

12. Consequences Arbejderhistorie subscribers From 480 to 384 pages 20 % less published articles

13. Mandate research council FKK 2008 Of 28 printed journals: • 15 still only in print • 4 became OA (delayed) • 2 won’t apply • 7 are closed

14. Mandate research council FKK 2008 35 % closed or with severe problems Reason: the research council was more interested in ideology than in publishing

15. OA – no advantage for researchers anymore Litterature at Research libraries Researchers need After John Houghton

16. OA – advantage for ordinary people Humanities and social sciences and popular STM in Danish But the municipal libraries could buy a licens for the whole population OA is not necessary

17. Author-archiving Open Access (green) researchers readers Editorial process Organisation (publisher)

18. A manuscript and an article are not the same

19. A manuscript and an article are not the same

20. A manuscript and an article are not the same

21. A manuscript and an article are not the same

22. Enforce the researchers to archive Researchers know that manuscripts are second class Archiving is against their will and will only happen after a mandate

23. Author-archiving Open Access (green) researchers readers Editorial process Organisation (publisher)

24. Author-archiving Open Access (green) researchers readers Editorial process Organisation (publisher)

25. Green Open Access is • Slow to read • Slow to use • Missing information • Wrong information • You need to use the original article • Bureaucratic and unproductive system • The functioning publishing system will be destroyed

26. Mandating a OA green is a strategy to get OA gold If universities mandate green open access, making all papers accessible, libraries will begin to cancel journal subscriptions "catastrophically“ Stevan Harnad, Times Higher Education 12 November 2009 And yes, some publishers will decide to leave the business, but that is perfectly fine. Stevan Harnad, Information Today February 2010

27. OA green mission: Destruction And from destruction came Phoenix: golden OA

28. What is the most dangerous idea in the world? It is the ideas about green OA that will reduce the quality and efficiency of the dissemination of research results. A reduction by only a few percent will be a threat to the world economy, and by that to peace and freedom.

29. That explain why DEFF/Danish Agency for Libraries and Media • Made OA lobby in secret • Kept the editors away from influences (330 mio. kr.) • Never have had open meetings about OA • Closed the doors for researchers, even at announced open OA meetings • Won’t allow researchers to join the OA network • Never have invited the Danish OA pioneers to share their experiences • Didn’t involve researchers, editors or publishers in the writing of the recommendation

30. This strategy will strengthen even the strongest • The smallest and weakest publishers will go out of business • The weak publishers will become more weak • The strongest companies will miss competition and by this become stronger

31. Can an Open Access mandate avoid destroying a well functioning publication system?NOOpen Access green is not a solution in and of itself but a strategic means to destroy the current publishing system Jørgen Burchardt The Society of Danish Science Editors jorgen.burchardt@mail.dk www.burchardt.name www.videnssamfundet.dk