University Of California Sides With Journal Publishers Over Its Own Struggling Libraries | Techdirt

abernard102@gmail.com 2013-04-25

Summary:

"There's been a push in recent years to open access to publicly funded research. The reasoning behind the push is solid: the public is paying for this research via federal funding, therefore it should have access to what it's paid for. The resistance usually comes from journal publishers who are very concerned about their main source of revenue -- access fees (usually on the "exorbitant" side) charged to university libraries. (Most publishers also charge writers a submission fee and grant themselves control of the copyright.) Current law says that, for NIH funded research, there's a requirement for public access once the journals have been properly 'windowed' by the publishers. After 12 months of publisher exclusivity, the publications are unlocked. A few recent bills have attempted to roll this back tosix months, something the publishers have greeted with cries of dismay, including the hilarious assertion that opening public access six months early would 'waste taxpayers' money.'   California is another state exploring cutting the current window in half and, like every other attempt, it's been greeted by opposition from publishers uninterested in a 50% gravy train reduction. This is the expected response. What's completely unexpected is hearing a university side with the publishers against its own cash-strapped libraries ... UC's letter seems to have the guiding hand of a concerned publisher behind it. It asks for the 'embargo' to be set at the federal level -- 12 months -- expressing 'concern' about a shorter time frame and saying that matching California's with the federal standard would 'help avoid confusion and promote compliance with the law.'   Oddly, the thought never occurred to UC to throw its support behind the bill seeking to set the national standard to 6 months in order to 'avoid confusion.' In other words, UC supports what's already in place and, if things do change, it should be exempt from the requirements. The letter also expresses a more real concern ... That's all well and good -- for the publishers. And this letter sides completely with the publishers, even adding a vague threat/warning that some journals may reject submissions coming from a state with only a 6-month "embargo" period. That's a rather stunning statement. It suggests that journal publishers will be more than willing to compile only the most profitable research, rather than the most pertinent or accurate.  On top of that, UC is siding against its own library system in its support of publishers ... UC's letter of support for a system that extracts $40M in fees annually from the university system for research the government paid for (and authors paid to submit) is as baffling as it is infuriating. As it stands now, the system is unsustainable for the university and yet, it makes a statement asking for the status to remain firmly quo, even as its own librarians are cutting subscriptions to keep costs manageable. This research was paid for by the public but the publishers are primarily concerned with keeping knowledge locked up and the public at arm's length. It's disappointing (and alarming) that a major university would sympathize and support the expected publisher behavior."

Link:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130422/19311122803/university-california-sides-with-journal-publishers-over-its-own-struggling-libraries.shtml

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » abernard102@gmail.com

Tags:

oa.new oa.business_models oa.publishers oa.policies oa.comment oa.government oa.legislation oa.universities oa.libraries oa.librarians oa.embargoes oa.budgets oa.debates oa.colleges oa.usa.ca oa.hei

Date tagged:

04/25/2013, 13:17

Date published:

04/25/2013, 09:17