open access resolution and 4Cs
Charlie Lowe
resolution at 4Cs. Seems a good way to promote open access with more
discussion on that list; it's the best venue we have for developing
awareness of OA in our discipline. I hope you'll join in. For those
that are on the fence about OA or don't know much about it, seeing
good postings from many different people will likely help the to gain
a positive impression about OA. And there's a lot of knowledge in this
group about OA. I'm sure we could field in questions/concerns that
come up.
Charlie
Porter, James E. Dr.
------------------------------------
Charlie Lowe
Porter, James E. Dr.
Jeffrey Galin
I missed this exchange yesterday. I don't look at my gmail as often as I look at my fau mail. I think the problem you two are grappling with is larger than the resolution proposal and should be scaled back a bit. I think Jim's question is both fair and important to take seriously. I hope to provide a useful response below.
First, lets focus on the immediate goal of the current resolution. There were a lot of misconceptions introduced at the business meeting on Saturday that should be clarified as well. The resolution states:
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that CCCC-sponsored journals will provide authors a non-exclusive right to place pre- and/or post-publication drafts of their published scholarly articles on the Internet; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CCCC will advocate for open-access publishing opportunities for other publishing venues--including other NCTE-sponsored journals--and educate scholars in the discipline to understand their rights, incentives, and responsibilities to their scholarly works.
The first clause is not asking for full gold open access, which you two seem to be implying. It merely requests what most larger publishers are automatically providing authors already. Pre- and post-production drafts to reside on university repositories or other networks like SSRN so not undermine the business model of CCC for several reasons;
Jeffrey R. Galin
Jeffrey Galin
Jeffrey R. Galin
Charlie Lowe
The first clause is not asking for full gold open access, which you two seem to be implying. It merely requests what most larger publishers are automatically providing authors already. Pre- and post-production drafts to reside on university repositories or other networks like SSRN so not undermine the business model of CCC for several reasons;
Jeffrey Galin
Jim and Charlie,
I missed this exchange yesterday. I don't look at my gmail as often as I look at my fau mail. I think the problem you two are grappling with is larger than the resolution proposal and should be scaled back a bit. I think Jim's question is both fair and important to take seriously. I hope to provide a useful response below.
First, lets focus on the immediate goal of the current resolution. There were a lot of misconceptions introduced at the business meeting on Saturday that should be clarified as well. The resolution states:
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that CCCC-sponsored journals will provide authors a non-exclusive right to place pre- and/or post-publication drafts of their published scholarly articles on the Internet; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the CCCC will advocate for open-access publishing opportunities for other publishing venues--including other NCTE-sponsored journals--and educate scholars in the discipline to understand their rights, incentives, and responsibilities to their scholarly works.
The first clause is not asking for full gold open access, which you two seem to be implying. It merely requests what most larger publishers are automatically providing authors already. Pre- and post-production drafts to reside on university repositories or other networks like SSRN do not undermine the business model of CCC for several reasons:
1) Kurt Austin, NCTE's Publication Director, recently wrote me to say: "we routinely allow authors to share their writing (with students or colleagues) and to put it in their institution’s online repository." Our resolution is asking only that this practice be made automatic rather than requiring a written request as an exception. The current NCTE Consent-to-Publish document at CCC states:
Whereas NCTE undertakes to publish the Contribution as above, and whereas you desire to have the contribution so published, now, therefore, you grant and assign to NCTE for its exclusive use the entire copyright for the Contribution. The copyright consists of any and all rights of whatever kind or nature now or hereafter protected by the copyright laws of the United States and of all foreign countries in all forms of communication, and NCTE shall be the sole owner thereof. NCTE, in turn, grants you the right to republish the Contribution in any scholarly work consisting solely of your own writing, subject only to notifying NCTE of your intent to do so and to the granting of proper credit in the work to the original publication of the Contribution by NCTE. In such case NCTE shall waive its customary permission fee.
According to this document NCTE retains all rights and then returns the right of authors to republish their CCC articles in a collection of their own work, nothing more. Given the routine practices that Kurt has identified, the CCC IP Committee advocate strongly that NCTE (particluarly CCC and CE) make these practices automatic. Such practices do not change the current funding model in substantial ways because it is already a common practice; it only places pre-review drafts in pre-print repositories so there is no contribution by CCC to those drafts; post-print production is slightly different. Nearly all CCC authors belong to institutions of higher education that subscribe to Jstor, so I expect that NCTE receives negligible revenue from reprints. Revenue from Jstor is not likely to be substantially affected because scholars may find an article here and there on the web in a repository, but the full official versions of the journal will still remain an import resource for scholars. I do not know the details of CCCs publishing model, but the assertion that pre- and post-print drafts appearing in repositories will affect subscription and membership rates seems erroneous. Similarly, the assertion made on Saturday that such practices would jeopardize faculty tenure and promotion is inaccurate. If anything, broader access would likely increase citation counts and only improve opportunities for promotion and tenure.
I have no need for physical copies of CCC and CE right now because, as a member of NCTE and as a faculty member, I have access to the journal to serve all of my needs. I would be thrilled to pay an additional fee annually for the right to have pre- and post-print access to CCC articles and avoid getting the physical copies to gather dust in my office. This gets me to the reasons why I think such practices are so important.
Open access to scholarly articles in our field enables me to get a clear idea what authors are thinking well ahead of the six months to a year delay time that print production takes. The current resolution would need to clarify that pre-and post-print drafts need to cite the published versions of the article for proper credit and official citation processes. Pre- and post-print drafts online would also make available our works to a MUCH broader audience who are likely to use and cite our works when they are not hidden behind toll walls. For example, I have colleagues in the Communications Department who would likely read a full 1/3rd of the works that get published in CCCs if only they found it more easily. Many do not know to look in our journals. Many community colleges and universities world wide have no access to our journals. The recommended practices would make our work more broadly available even if in piecemeal form. As I noted above, broader distribution would likely lead to higher citation rates over time. I know the statistics are mixed now concerning citation rates, but as Charlie says, open access is our future. We should embrace it now rather than waiting. I co-wrote my first article on the need for pre-print open access archives in 1998 and presented at C&W that year on this issue. Our field has made only baby steps toward OA since that time. At some point, NCTE may chose to develop a new business model and go for Gold or Creative Commons licensing. The CCC IP Committee is NOT looking for such dramatic changes now nor in the near future.
The first statement of the second clause encourages NCTE to advocate for open -access publishing opportunities for venues beyond our current domain, including other NCTE journals. There is no mandate here that other NCTE journals must capitulate, nor any other journals for that matter. It is a matter of advocacy to encourage a change in the culture of our members and partner publications. The second statement in the second clause commits CCC to education our scholars to better understand their rights, incentives, and responsibilities for their works. The CCC IP Committee is already charged with this mandate. The CCCCC-IP caucus carries it further. The resolution is only making the charge a commitment for the larger organization. The CCC IP Committee and caucus will continue to publish, organize panels, and inform the CCCC body concerning these issues. CCCC can support featured speakers concerning these issues, as they have done in the past and have committed for next year's conference. CCC can consider registering their journals with open access repository lists if and when it makes the changes recommended by the resolution. There could be special issues of the journal, special workshops, and other opportunities to advocate and disseminate OA information.
All of this is to say that we are not asking for much more than what CCC already does. We are asking to formalize those practices.
There is much more that could be said, but this is enough for one post. The more people who can enter this discussion, the more effective the conversation should be. Perhaps we should move it to the WPA list?
cheers,
jrg
--On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Porter, James E. Dr. <port...@muohio.edu> wrote:
Charlie … Well, sure, it's their problem ultimately. But if we want them to change, i think we should acknowledge the reality and to some extent even the legitimacy of their situation -- it's not entirely an immoral or corrupt position -- and try to suggest some alternative models, and maybe some kind of sequential transitional model, to help them get from Point A (restrictive access) to Point B (OA). That's the economic argument I think we need to develop. Anyhow, I'm trying to work on this myself. JimWell, Jim, to be blunt, that is something that the journals will have to figure out for themselves. They built their business model over the last 20 years on the idea that they should be able to milk every dollar out of access to scholarly publishing in both print and electronic form. They assumed because they had the exclusive ability to distribute in a print age--where they served a much needed purpose--that they should continue to have that exclusive control in a digital age where authors and institutions need not depend on them for digital distribution. Now that the windfall is over, they'll have to lean up their operations and/or seek other revenue streams. Or they risk losing submissions and subscriptions as authors/readers value OA.CharlieOn Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Porter, James E. Dr. <port...@muohio.edu> wrote:
Our journals are reluctant to give up the subscription revenue that not only supports the journal but our organizations as well. If our journals go OA, where is the revenue coming from?
------------------------------------James E. Porter, ProfessorDepartment of English andArmstrong Institute for Interactive Media StudiesDirector of Composition
Department of EnglishBachelor Hall 356AMiami UniversityOxford, OH 45056email: port...@muohio.edutwitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim------------------------------------
Jeffrey R. Galin
--
Jeffrey R. Galin
Jeffrey Galin
Yes, I agree that we should be calling it an author's rights statement, but I don't think book publishing is the place to go at this time, certainly not for NCTE at this time. I suggest we move slowly.
cheers,
jrg
Jeffrey R. Galin
martine courant rife
the issue that was raised at the caucus meeting last week -- Um, I
emailed Malea (to congratulate her on her CCCC speech) who said she's
happy to discuss any of these issues with any of us (like I said she
directed my MA and works 3 miles away from where I work). But - she
said (not in these words), that the revenue generated from the
subscriptions sustains the organization. I understand what Charlie is
saying about shifting the burden to figure out a different economic
model back onto the organization, but then, in this case, that's us.
So - on the open access issue - I'd personally need to know:
1. How much yearly income is generated from subscriptions - both
individual and institutional (through databases). I'm assuming NCTE or
CCCC gets paid by ProQuest and such for access to the journals.
2. What this income is spent on.
Then, as members of the organization, if we want to have an
organization, we'd have to figure out a different way to generate the
revenue that would be lost by going open access. Some of the options
seem rather unpleasant - like paying to publish.
On the other hand, I think just some open statements about the
contributions authors are making - like explicitly acknowledging that,
might also help quell some of the issues that are disturbing. Like, I
can't say the organization really acknowledges the time I've spend
peer reviewing, writing, and such. (I actually think I only have one
article in an NCTE pub.). I was actually thinking, since it's a
charitable donation of sorts, they should give us one of those receipt
thingys like you get at the salvation army when you make a donation,
whenever an article we wrote gets published. :) If we itemized we
might get a deduction (kidding, kind of). But in contrast, for those
of you working at research universities where publication matters,
perhaps you are already getting "paid." (At my college our negotiated
labor contract reflects a 40 hour work week and publications don't
really do much for your career once you have tenure).
Of course, the larger problem is that the current economic model of
publishing in peer reviewed journals creates a disincentive to the
more marginalized of us, to publish. Since you aren't paid for your
work, if you are not concretely credited at your place of employment
with a possible merit raise (which I, for example, am not - there are
no merit raises - we are unionized and all get the same raises based
on years-of-service per the contract schedule), and you have 1000000
tasks to complete, some of which you **will** get paid for, you make
certain choices that are only logical. (Unless unlike me you are
independently wealthy or don't care about money).
Anyway . . .
Just random thoughts.
Martine
--
Martine Courant Rife, JD, PhD
Professor, Writing Program
Lansing Community College English Department
Arts & Sciences Building, 211G, 517/4839906
http://www.martinecourantrife.com/
http://www.parlorpress.com/copywrite
***
Achieving the Dream Core Team
College-Wide Assessment Committee
FACT (Faculty Assessment Consulting Team)
Lansing Community College
Kyle Stedman
Kyle Stedman
Doctoral Candidate, Rhetoric and Composition
University of South Florida
http://transmediame.wordpress.com/
Charlie Lowe
Jeffrey Galin
Charlie, yes we can shift our focus to author rights and retaining of those rights. That conversation can happen in any context. But, the best discussions these days are collaborations. Think SCOPE3 and the negotiations they are having with publishers, libraries, authors, and professional organizations. In our particular case, I think direct conversations would be most productive.
I want to respond to several other things said in this thread.
1st, I didn't yet send anything to Malea, Karen, Howard, etc. because we are working out some of the issues here first. Perhaps once we agree here we can set up a meeting with them to identify and address their specific concerns.
2nd, Martine's statement about funding CCC thorugh memberships and subscriptions still seems to slide into Gold OA rather than Green. This distinction is rather important. I agree with Martine that we need to understand the current business model in order to determine if I might be right that pre-review pre-prints and post prints will not substantially impact their funding model. I have tried to consider all of the angles on this issue and can't quite figure out how pre-prints will have any impact at all. Post-prints could impact licensing agreements they have with Jstor or Proquest, but since the sciences have worked out ways to address these issues, I think it is only a matter of careful thought and effective policies. If we were asking for gold OA, a new business model would be necessary. Green OA may only require additional policies or slight tweaks in the business model. Let's not confuse the two.
I like where Martine is taking us. Let's compose a set of questions that we can take to Jim, Karen, Malea, Howard, John Schilb, and others.
I'll add: What threats do you perceive from pre-review pre-prints and post-prints?
How might we image an alternative procedure that would minimize those threats?
If a new business model is warranted, what would that be? I think higher membership fees are a good possibility, especially if they can lead eventually to true Gold OA distribution of our scholarly works.
I tried to answer Jim's questions of why turn to Green OA. What responses do others have to that question?
Why wouldn't we want to move to Green OA now? This question may have only one answer, the business model. But I think there is more here that has not yet been articulated.
What would it take to get to Green OA in the next three years? I think this is really the question we should be asking.
What does the rest of the field think? I think a good survey to the membership with an accompanying white paper could prove very instructive.
What is the best case scenario?
What is the worst case scenario?
What are the best practices from disciplines that are already engaged in Green OA (a la Kyle's question).
Others?
Cheers,
Jeffrey R. Galin
Charlie Lowe
Charlie, yes we can shift our focus to author rights and retaining of those rights. That conversation can happen in any context. But, the best discussions these days are collaborations. Think SCOPE3 and the negotiations they are having with publishers, libraries, authors, and professional organizations. In our particular case, I think direct conversations would be most productive.
Porter, James E. Dr.
martine courant rife
I seriously don't understand what they mean.
"Emotional access" - that's funny. :) True though. STC, last year (or
the year before), went to some kind of publication model where TC is
totally digital *unless* someone wants to pay extra for a print
version. (I think, but we'd have to check). Parlor Press uses that CC
license for the online pdf of books, but if individuals want a print
version, they need to pay for it (and I have). The expense comes in
the printing.
So, regardless of the color of OA - maybe we could argue for some kind
of hybrid model, where online is freely available, but subscribers pay
for print. That might also satisfy their emotional needs.
I was also thinking, considering all this coverage of the supreme
court hearings, that if in fact revenue streams from subscriptions are
sustaining the organization, that means that those who publish, edit,
and peer review the NCTE/CCC journals, are actually subsidizing the
memberships of those who don't. So, the idea of raising membership
fees for all and then making the journal freely available, in online
format, to all, might work. (Or we could have those who don't peer
review/edit/publish pay a "penalty" membership fee of 2.5% or
something - just a number out of a hat at this point). Just thinking
about "Obama Care" issues, as I've heard them on the radio and such
(continuously) over the last few days.
Martine
--
Charlie Lowe
I need someone to clearly define these different colors of OA, because
I seriously don't understand what they mean.
Jeffrey Galin
Thanks for engaging with us on this issue. To answer your question, Green OA is not exclusive to online delivery. That is, a vast array of journals that are print journals permit authors to post their printed works in digital form in pre- and post-print archives. Charlie's link to Suber's introduction is really helpful. OPEN DOAJ is a wonderful resource listing OA journals. You might check out the Directory of Open Access Journals and/or RoMEO, the green OA list, both of which are based at the University of Nottingham, UK.
Another useful index of OA journals and magazines is JURN.org It catalogs English-language open access ejournals and some non-English journals, most of which are “full-text.” JURN indexes a wider range than does DOAJ because it also includes publications that “offer significant free full-text content (e.g.: all of their book reviews, or some of their older archives), without the need for registration or other barriers.” “Journals that only provide tables-of-contents and/or abstracts are not indexed.” As of April 2nd 2011, JURN listed about 4175 publications. [www.jurn.org]. RoMEO lists print and online Green OA while JURN lists only ejournals.
The best description of why humanities lag behind the sciences are in articles by Peter Suber and Stephen Harnad.
"The University's Mandate To Mandate Open Access Open Access Archivangelism" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/358-guid.html and "Promoting Open Access in the Humanities" http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/apa.htm. The biggest reasons are disciplinary culture. I don't remember either suggesting emotional attachment to print, but that makes some sense to me.
Honestly, if CCCs went to Open Access and charged for faculty to buy the print-on-demand editions, I think the organization could serve all needs. I have over twenty years of CCCs and CE gathering dust on my shelves. I can't remember the last time I used one. I'm not even sure why I keep paying for the paper versions, perhaps just habit. I can get all that I need through my library. I guess I do it to support NCTE, which I would do with or without print issues.
Cheers,
jrg
Jeffrey R. Galin
Porter, James E. Dr.
Jeffrey Galin
Jeffrey R. Galin