StrypeyNot sure I saw this one when it was announced a year ago. this is huge!
'US government to make all research it funds open access on publication'
"Policy will go into effect in 2026, apply to everything that gets federal money."
#JohnTimmer, 2022
Warren Currie 🦠🦐@strypey Elsevier and the other uber profit-makers are very excited about this - and no doubt were lobbying for it. $$ straight from the feds to publishers...
@DrPlanktonguy
> Elsevier and the other uber profit-makers are very excited about this - and no doubt were lobbying for it
I don't think Open Access means what you think it means. But the devil is in the details, as always. If you have some evidence of this lobbying, and some explanation for what exactly they got out of it, I'm all ears. Are you pointing to Regulatory Capture?
@strypey the open access requirement will be met by researchers paying journal publishers anywhere in the range of $3000 - $15000 (US) per article. This comes out of their research funding. In order to meet the copyright of the publisher, they will have to follow the journal's requirements. You cannot just post a copy of your article on another service (legally) like ResearchGate. I know people who work for some of the less aggregious publishers, and they do have (perfectly legal) lobbyists.
@DrPlanktonguy
> the open access requirement will be met by researchers paying journal publishers
Ah. Regulatory Capture it is. The good news being that if they chose to corrupt it instead, it would seem the lobbyists didn't believe they could *stop* an Open Access push by the US federal government.
> You cannot just post a copy of your article on another service (legally) like ResearchGate
But... is it "open access" if it's under an ARR copyright? Isn't something like a CC license required?
@strypey not really regulatory capture either because it's entirely above board. It just make corporations richer (hardly new for govt decisions). Same idea as investment in "carbon capture" or industry subsidies.
The open access for academic publications is a very different beast. Basically, for almost every high profile journal, it is an Author-Pays model (using an Article Processing Fee), whereby author pays the journal to have a CC license for the material and host the article online.
@strypey for instance here is the CC link for one of my recent papers. This was not free. It cost about $3k to get this open access.
https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=ELS&contentID=S0380133021000332&orderBeanReset=true
https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=ELS&contentID=S0380133021000332&orderBeanReset=true
@DrPlanktonguy
> here is the CC link for one of my recent papers. This was not free. It cost about $3k to get this open access
I understand this happens. But it's not inherent to Open Access or CreativeCommons. There's also an growing movement of Open Access journals and pre-print archives who don't charge to publish under CC licenses.
The oligopoly of academic publishers do this specifically to smear Open Access. It's a classic case of platform enshittification.
@strypey I don't disagree. However, the literature has not shifted away from this model. With people's tenure, promotion, and reputation on the line, it will require a massive shift away from the existing system before the people who evaluate our success will agree.
@DrPlanktonguy
> However, the literature has not shifted away from this model
All generalisations are false ; )
A number of established journals have had their editorial team quit en masse, and go off and start new Open Access journals. But you're right that the critical mass hasn't been reached yet. As with Titter and Deddit, a minority leaving in disgust still leaves them in a dominant position. For now.
(1/2)
@DrPlanktonguy
The question is what can we, as the Open Access/ fediverse movements, do to speed the demise of the Elseviers and Titters? What do those still trapped by the network effects of the dinosaur platforms need to help them escape the DataFarms too?
Coming back to the OP, getting the govt to exclude exploitative pay-to-publish models from Open Access publishing obligations would be a good step. An achievable one too, I reckon. The politicians may just not know.
(2/2)
CC @petersuber
petersuber@strypey @DrPlanktonguy
Under the #OSTP guidelines, covered works must be deposited in designated repositories (#GreenOA). This is compatible with publishing in OA journals (#GoldOA). But gold OA (with or without #APCs) is not necessary & not sufficient.
Compliance with the #OpenAccess policies is free of charge. If a journal charges an APC to pub an author’s fed-funded research, the fee is to pub in that particular journal, not to comply with the policy. Authors always have no-fee options.
@petersuber
> Compliance with the #OpenAccess policies is free of charge
Thanks for the clarification Peter. As a street scholar who hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal of any kind yet, I find this reassuring. But...
(1/2)
@petersuber
> If a journal charges an APC to pub an author’s fed-funded research, the fee is to pub in that particular journal
I think @DrPlanktonguy's point is that this gives many academics a choice between pay-to-publish in high-impact journals, or gratis in lower-impact ones. Considering the publish-or-perish pressures many academics are under now, this isn't really a choice.
Do you have any thoughts about how to escape the horns of this dilemma?
(2/2)
@strypey @DrPlanktonguy
1. Fed-funded authors can publish in high-impact subscription (non-OA) journals and pay no #APCs. Their work will still be #OpenAccess through the funder's designated repository.
2. Some no-fee OA journals (#DiamondOA) are already high-impact and the number grows steadily.
3. Some high-impact journals will charge no APCs and still allow #unembargoed #GreenOA (as required by the #OSTP policies). An important example is @ScienceMagazine.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade8028
1. Fed-funded authors can publish in high-impact subscription (non-OA) journals and pay no #APCs. Their work will still be #OpenAccess through the funder's designated repository.
2. Some no-fee OA journals (#DiamondOA) are already high-impact and the number grows steadily.
3. Some high-impact journals will charge no APCs and still allow #unembargoed #GreenOA (as required by the #OSTP policies). An important example is @ScienceMagazine.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade8028
Thanks @petersuber, I very much appreciate having a subject matter expert weigh in on this : )
Does this address your concerns @DrPlanktonguy?
@strypey @petersuber not particularly, since it is a bit naive. You cannot put most papers on a government or agency repository until after the embargo period of 1-2 years. Many researchers are very reluctant to wait, and further, it won't meet the requirements of needing it open access immediately. There is no free option except for a very small number of 'diamond' journals. I really would like to see the system change, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
@DrPlanktonguy @strypey
1. The new policies under the #OSTP memo will abolish #embargoes and require immediate or unembargoed #OpenAccess.
2. There are more #DiamondOA journals (no-APC OA journals) than APC-based OA journals, even if most articles pub'd by OA journals are in the APC-based variety. Not a "very small number."
1. The new policies under the #OSTP memo will abolish #embargoes and require immediate or unembargoed #OpenAccess.
2. There are more #DiamondOA journals (no-APC OA journals) than APC-based OA journals, even if most articles pub'd by OA journals are in the APC-based variety. Not a "very small number."
@DrPlanktonguy
> not really regulatory capture either because it's entirely above board. It just make corporations richer
Yes, this is the goal of all Regulatory Capture. I capitalised to to indicate that it's a phrase with a specific technical meaning in political-economic discussions. See:
@DrPlanktonguy
> The open access for academic publications is a very different beast
As a phrase, Open Access refers specifically to academic publication. What other contexts have you seen it used in?