Author:
Who works in universities and for accessing the content of her/his own intellectual output, always thought that Open Access was the frontline for all sciences and disciplines against the power of big publishers.
But should we slow down a bit our enthusiasm and rethink the meaning of Open Access publishing in the Humanities ?
Yes if we follow the conclusions of the important Finch Report on OA in the UK (Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications. Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings): producing free information and scholarly contents is not done for free. This is exactly what the Centre pour l’édition électronique ouverte (Cléo) (CNRS, Université de Provence, EHESS and Université d’Avignon) in France understood in February 2011 with their offer for an OpenEdition Freemium programme for libraries, which was the “Cléo’s innovative economic model for Open Access” where libraries will soon contribute to the costs of free information and scholarly contents. Marin Dacos for OpenEdition published recently a statement on OA and OA business model. This model creates a form of Open Access publishing that enables authors to publish and readers to read without financial obstacles. OpenEdition hopes to convince the French Government that this OA academic model should be backed up.
But in general, following the Freemium OpenEdition economic model in France, OA publishers and universities should develop more services to academic libraries to foster, on the long run, a fully operative OA and gather some money from these libraries participating directly to a better diffusion of OA contents in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Maybe a continuing interaction between libraries and OA publishers will allow to understand better the kind of services academic libraries would like to see implemented in such a business model like Freemium, etc.?
So, in France (OpenEdition), in the UK (Frisch report) and now the AHA report, the American Historical Association suggests that some money has to be found for paying the costs of scholarly OA.
This is why the AHA recently argued about the fact that the movement toward “open access” of scholarly journal articles was not looking at the impact on humanities scholarship as a whole for maintaining the real costs of OA.
The AHA writes in their official statement that until now, “the conversation has been framed by the particular characteristics and economics of science publishing, a landscape considerably different from the terrain of scholarship in the humanities. ”
This is what suggests the post “Not So Fast on ‘Open Access” recently published by AHA Today on September 24, 2012. Not to say that many tweets and blogs in the US and everywhere already informed, commented and discussed this controversial issue and statement which was not published in Perspectives Online, the association’s famous Bulletin in its September issue, but on the AHA blog, for a faster diffusion. Comments were offered that same day in Inside Higher Ed for example which describes Dan Cohen’s critical lecture.
The director of the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University wrote –I quote here Scott Jaschik Inside Education Ed interesting post – “that he understood “the bind that professional societies outside of the sciences are in, with pressure toward open access while worrying about the sustainability of their relatively small publishing units. In that context, this statement is understandable.” But he added […] that there has “been a great deal of thinking over the last decade about sustaining open-access publishing beyond what the Finch Report recommends with subvention fees” Cohen was looking more at “an energetic discussion about creative solutions that allow historical scholarship to reach the broadest possible audience“.
Dan Cohen’s comments on the AHA statement asking for more concerns for historical scholarship seems not to offer real alternative economic models and new principles towards a broader global policy for OA in the humanities where the solution mentioned above and offered by the Cléo with the Freemium program does offer one.
The OpenEdition proposal was to enter in contact with libraries on their own field of duties: producing services for the community of humanist and social scientists scholars that libraries would pay for but maintaining open and free the access to their intellectual output.
The content of this AHA Statement on Scholarly Journal Publishing is here reproduced in its entirety for you to judge:
“Many members of the international scholarly and scientific community are justifiably concerned by a growing inequality of access to the fruits of their labors. The subscription prices for many journals, especially scientific journals, have escalated to the point where almost no individuals and fewer and fewer institutions can afford to subscribe. Prosperous universities and institutes maintain their subscriptions and their members thereby enjoy free access to the content of thousands of journals. Other, less fortunate, scholars have free access to declining numbers of journals, thereby impoverishing the research and pedagogical capabilities of their communities.
In today’s digital world, many people inside and outside of academia maintain that information, including scholarly research, wants to be, and should be, free. Where people subsidized by taxpayers have created that information, the logic of free information is difficult to resist.
The AHA, like other scholarly societies, has been wrestling with this complex discourse for some time. The issues have provided a focus of conversations in our governing Council; and staff have participated in relevant conference panels. Recently, however, decisions made at individual institutions regarding faculty publication, debates over federal legislation, and the influential “Finch report” in the United Kingdom have drawn broader attention the issue of open access to scholarly journals.
The Finch Report is particularly significant because it is likely to influence public policy. Relying implicitly on evidence and practices largely drawn from the sciences, the Report builds a case for open-access journals, free to everyone with internet access. It recognizes, however, that information is not free (indeed never has been); financial resources are required to produce high quality academic journals – even of the digital variety. Accordingly, the Report recommends a transition in the financing of journals away from subscription revenues to a system in which authors pay journals when their work is published and all content is offered free to readers. In the Finch Report, this is called an author payment charge, or APC.
The concerns motivating these recommendations are valid, but the proposed solution raises serious questions for scholarly publishing, especially in the humanities and social sciences.
[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]
Drafted by the AHA Research Division, approved by Council August 13, 2012