White House rationale

[Glenn Hampson]

Here’s the White House Budget Office analysis re the policy change. I’ll look this over ASAP.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Congressional-Report.pdf

Sent from my iPhone

[Lynn Kamerlin]

Since I have feet in both continents, US libraries seem far less prepared for this than European ones (e.g. PAR agreements really rare etc), and US researchers I have spoken to even less so. Do you think this would actually mobilize US libraries to consider PAR agreements? It's unaffordable for researchers otherwise.

Get BlueMail for Android

När du har kontakt med oss på Uppsala universitet med e-post så innebär det att vi behandlar dina personuppgifter. För att läsa mer om hur vi gör det kan du läsa här: http://www.uu.se/om-uu/dataskydd-personuppgifter/

E-mailing Uppsala University means that we will process your personal data. For more information on how this is performed, please read here: http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/data-protection-policy

[Lisa Hinchliffe]

FWIW, Lynn, in a word ... yes.

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/2b36378b-5cc3-4c9c-9913-63d69ea64d56%40kemi.uu.se.

[Glenn Hampson]

The problem, though, if I’m reciting this correctly, is that Elsevier et al aren’t inclined to negotiate PARs with the vast majority of university libraries. The U Cal system has publishing gravitas---much less so the thousands of smaller colleges that, even though they don’t account for big chunks of research output, still account for most colleges and universities (both in the US and globally).

[Lisa Hinchliffe]

Oh sure, only those schools with publishing profiles will care to negotiate publishing contracts!

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com

[Michael Clarke]

Won’t this have the opposite effect? Why would a university negotiate a PAR deal now? Prior to the new OSTP policy, librarians who wanted to advocate for OA could pursue a PAR deal. Such deals (excepting the US “multi-payer” model) use university funds to pay for OA. The OSTP is now mandating the use of federal funds for OA so why would a university (even one committed to OA) sign a deal that shifts payment from Uncle Sam to themselves? Unless they step in to act as a middle-layer payment administrator in the mode of the multi-payer model. 

On Aug 25, 2022, at 7:22 PM, Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAKjLim1KdVYxh_dJ-9tGYrkT8i3NonV7-t600rTSPQ_7zqK1xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Clarke]

*UC multipayer model (not US)

[Lisa Hinchliffe]

Not sure where you get that Uncle Sam is going to foot the bill for all OA publishing? Researchers I know say that they have to be selective what they publish Gold OA bc the funds aren't sufficient to cover all the output being Gold OA.

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com

[Glenn Hampson]

So, okay---I just took a little deeper read through these documents. I’m truly gobsmacked by the frivolity of the analysis and overreach of the recommendations,  but maybe that’s just me. There are many passages in the analysis which assume this and that, and then venture to make conclusions and recommendations based on these assumptions because the need is urgent and the benefits will far outweigh the disruptions (another assumption). COVID-19 data sharing is relied on as an example of what open science can do, even though we know from deeper reading that plenty of COVID data was kept private in the race to find and monetize a vaccine. My overall feeling is that both the policy and the rationale for it were written by policymakers who had their mind made up beforehand.

 

In OSI’s 10-year mission to find a workable path forward for open access, we’ve been passed thrice: First by Plan S, then by UNESCO’s open science declaration, and now by this bombshell revision to the US Public Access policy. I’m not sure, given this race toward an APC-fueled world, that OSI’s search for common ground is even relevant any more. It certainly matters for most of the world’s researchers who will be struggling in the wake of these emerging policies, but losing the US is a major blow to the prospect of widespread adoption. I’d like to think there will be some pushback on this policy---not to slow the switch to open, but to make sure we head down the right path for the right reasons. To me, anyway----and I know to a lot of folks in this group who have debated these issues for years now---this right path is still under construction, if only we can muster the energy and patience to keep building it.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

 

 

 

From: Michael Clarke <mtcl...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 8:03 PM
To: Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com>
Cc: Lynn Kamerlin <lynn.k...@kemi.uu.se>; Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: White House rationale

 

Won’t this have the opposite effect? Why would a university negotiate a PAR deal now? Prior to the new OSTP policy, librarians who wanted to advocate for OA could pursue a PAR deal. Such deals (excepting the US “multi-payer” model) use university funds to pay for OA. The OSTP is now mandating the use of federal funds for OA so why would a university (even one committed to OA) sign a deal that shifts payment from Uncle Sam to themselves? Unless they step in to act as a middle-layer payment administrator in the mode of the multi-payer model. 

[Glenn Hampson]

The proposed policy will increase funding to pay for publishing charges---around 5%

 

From: Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 8:19 PM
To: Michael Clarke <mtcl...@gmail.com>
Cc: Lynn Kamerlin <lynn.k...@kemi.uu.se>; Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: White House rationale

 

Not sure where you get that Uncle Sam is going to foot the bill for all OA publishing? Researchers I know say that they have to be selective what they publish Gold OA bc the funds aren't sufficient to cover all the output being Gold OA.

 

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com

[Lisa Hinchliffe]

Yes. Is that sufficient to cover it all? Even at current APC rates much less climbing?

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com

[Michael Clarke]

The new OSTP mandate requires federally funded research to be “publicly accessible” with zero embargo. 

This is supposedly a green OA mandate but the effect, combined with EU policies, will be a huge amount of content OA in easily findable repositories like PMC.

This will erode subscriptions. Combined with COUNTER5, Unsub, etc. more and more journals will reach the point where they need to flip to OA (and no one is going to launch a journal that is not Gold OA).

Many journals will likely *require* any author with a zero embargo mandate to publish via Gold OA even prior to a flip.

In other words, the effect of this policy will be to greatly accelerate the shift to Gold. 

Federally funded authors *have* to publish OA. They will have to publish Gold OA (green will not be a viable option for long). Hence the US Government will *have* to either abandon the policy or pick up the tab. 

I don’t see why universities would not just let this play out. The bill will eventually land with Uncle Sam. 

[Michael Clarke]

I don’t have a point of view on the policy as such, but I agree with you 100% Glenn on the frivolity of the analysis. It is truly gobsmacking. As one luminous example, the evidence cited that a zero embargo policy will not harm publisher subscriptions is… a short (British) news story that has a couple quotes from one publisher(!). The policy may very well be a “good” one — but it will not be the one intended. This purports to be be a Green OA mandate but it will result in Gold OA. 

On Aug 25, 2022, at 8:29 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

So, okay---I just took a little deeper read through these documents. I’m truly gobsmacked by the frivolity of the analysis and overreach of the recommendations,  but maybe that’s just me. There are many passages in the analysis which assume this and that, and then venture to make conclusions and recommendations based on these assumptions because the need is urgent and the benefits will far outweigh the disruptions (another assumption). COVID-19 data sharing is relied on as an example of what open science can do, even though we know from deeper reading that plenty of COVID data was kept private in the race to find and monetize a vaccine. My overall feeling is that both the policy and the rationale for it were written by policymakers who had their mind made up beforehand.

 

In OSI’s 10-year mission to find a workable path forward for open access, we’ve been passed thrice: First by Plan S, then by UNESCO’s open science declaration, and now by this bombshell revision to the US Public Access policy. I’m not sure, given this race toward an APC-fueled world, that OSI’s search for common ground is even relevant any more. It certainly matters for most of the world’s researchers who will be struggling in the wake of these emerging policies, but losing the US is a major blow to the prospect of widespread adoption. I’d like to think there will be some pushback on this policy---not to slow the switch to open, but to make sure we head down the right path for the right reasons. To me, anyway----and I know to a lot of folks in this group who have debated these issues for years now---this right path is still under construction, if only we can muster the energy and patience to keep building it.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

<image001.jpg>

[Lisa Hinchliffe]

This is where I lose you: "Hence the US Government will *have* to either abandon the policy or pick up the tab."   

Universities have to figure out how to cope with un-/under-funded mandates all the time. Telling their researchers that they just can't publish if they don't have the funds from the US govt seems an unlikely strategy when the universities themselves want to see those publications. If not PARs, we'll just see a surge of APCs-in-the-wild as scholars and departments find whatever funds they can until someone is like "can't we just write a contract for this?" And ... yep, the library can!

___

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com

[Michael Clarke]

Universities are not telling their federally funded researchers they can’t publish if they don’t have funds (they do have fund) from the US government. The US government is telling researchers they have to publish OA. 

It a researcher gets a grant from NIH and NIH says: “Here are some funds for research. You have to publish the results OA. You can use some of the funds for that.” It seems like the funds will come from… NIH?

I agree that universities will likely play an administrative role and it would make sense to have central payment processing and someone tracking it all at the institution and funder level (I love the term “In the wild APCs”!). And they may even play a role in negotiating with federal agencies over increased indirects to cover publication costs. Or in managing multi-payer portals. 

BUT… I don’t see how the bill doesn’t ultimately land with the agencies. They are requiring OA publication. It seems like they will ultimately need to choose between funding less research or adding new $ for publication (either directly or via increased overheads). Or weakening the OA requirement. 

If universities step in to negotiate PAR deals it seems like it will just be bailing out OSTP’s unfunded mandate… which, sure, they could, but isn’t it the government’s job to do the bailouts?

[Lisa Hinchliffe]

I'm not saying no funds would come from NIH (US agency in your scenario) but that those funds won't be enough to cover all the publishing the researcher wants to do.

I'm not suggesting what SHOULD be (re whose job it is), I am predicting what WILL be (because there are a lot of forces at play not just the OA mandate). 

If you don't think I'm right that this is what will happen, I'm curious what you believe happens when the researcher is out of NIH funds in your scenario? They just stop publishing until the university lets them know that NIH has dropped the compliance mandate? 

[Michael Clarke]

In the short term (meaning the next decade), I think the researcher publishes in a Hybrid journal with no APC (while those still exist) and does not assert a zero embargo and then either A. does not use the paper in their progress report or next grant application, or B. Does use the paper in their progress report and says to the agency they had no money for an APC. At some point the agencies will have to deal with funding the thing they are requiring if they want it to happen. Or they will have less research being done as researchers will have to cut a post-doc position in order to pay APCs. Which is not a good outcome for anyone.

I could be entirely wrong about this (it has happened before!). I am also not trying to say what should happen — I just am struggling with incentive that universities have to step in to fund a federal mandate. Yes, they want more publications but the question is what happens if they don’t step in? It seems like researchers will still publish and the agencies will have to either weaken their mandate or come up with money to keep their mandate. (The alternative is that agencies *anticipate* that universities will pick up the tab for their mandate, which I guess is what is happening in the EU, though the economics of university funding are somewhat different there).

I think the bigger question is the impact of researchers *without* federal funds. If there are fewer and fewer green OA venues, these researchers will be increasingly at a disadvantage vs researchers with funds (even if those funds eventually run out). That is a good reason for universities to broker PAR deals — especially if they can work in a multi-payer angle to bring in agency funds.

[Lisa Hinchliffe]

Ah, so, you aren't expecting an RRS-esque like requirement at submission in the agency implementations of the mandate? 

And, yes, your last observation is one of the other factors I was thinking of that will also push toward PARs.   

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/C8D3D6CF-EB0B-4649-B1B3-06469FA6A2ED%40gmail.com.

[Michael Clarke]

I was not contemplating a US version of the RRS. I guess that is possible though I don’t know how that would play out here legally. 

The more I think about it the more some form of multi-payer model seems the most fair and elegant solution. Not that fairness and elegance always win out, sadly. We shall see!

[Lisa Hinchliffe]

Something I just thought of, which  is a difference in the US than Europe, is CHORUS and its publisher and funder member agreements. That set-up is going to impact on this I think. Once authors declare funder, a bunch of stuff kicks in that  isn't about what  the author does but what the funder and publisher have agreed to do. I'm going to have to ponder tho if that has implications for PAR-enthusiasm by libraries or not. But, it will I think mean publishers are going to be even more interested in PARs in the US.

[David Wojick]

Interesting because last I knew money from a research contract could not be carried over after the contract ends to pay for APCs and most articles are written after the contract ends. Maybe this has changed. Contract close out normally requires returning all unspent funds.

Where does it say this 5%?

David

On Aug 25, 2022, at 11:32 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/BN6PR1701MB173273788ADA535EED5C9F44C5759%40BN6PR1701MB1732.namprd17.prod.outlook.com.

[Todd Carpenter]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAKjLim0NUddtCxZ5xMDSjEG%2BcN%2B8JjPCrJ%2Bt7XQ%3Drrs2NeQDQA%40mail.gmail.com.