Scholarly Open Access |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Home
About
About Us
Beall's
Beall's List
Support
Contact |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Let’s
see: ·
The first is an
assertion within a report (not in any sense part of the scholarly
literature) to the International Association of Scientific, Technical and
Medical Publishers—a trade group that wants to believe the crisis
is over. ·
The second, which
is peer-reviewed, claims that the serials crisis may not be “as acute as
some have suggested” and that “most academics are clearly
operating productively under the existing methods of scholarly
communication.” (The
article itself is behind a paywall—but in any case the excerpt only
argues that the crisis within academia is less severe than some
claim. It’s also pretty limited, based on eight New Zealand
universities.) ·
The third is, astonishingly, excerpted from an interview with Derk
Haank, at the time CEO of Springer and formerly chair of Elsevier Science.
Is it any surprise that Haank says the crisis is over? ·
The fourth is apparently a peer-reviewed article and the excerpt
says ARL libraries—the ones most able to handle serials price
increases— get a lot more serials (not necessarily journals) now than
they did in 1989-1990. (Specifically, the asserted median has gone from
21,187 to 80,292.) How this establishes that the serials crisis is over
for all academic libraries or that open access is less necessary? It
doesn’t. It says that the Big Deal increased the number of available
journals; it says nothing about affordability or about access
beyond ARL libraries. (Just as a reality check, I looked at FY2010 figures
for Carnegie Classification 15, which appears to encompass what used to be
Research I and II and includes 151 reporting institutions: it’s not
quite the same set as ARL. The median number of serials is 59,942;
48 of them have 80,292 or more, and that 48th institution is precisely 80,292.
If you’re wondering, the median number of serials for Carnegie
Classification 16, what used to be Doctoral I and II, is 12,739 serials.) The
fifth? Eureka: this one does specifically say that the Big Deals
“essentially resolved the serials crisis by 2004.” It’s behind a
paywall. It’s a short communication, not a scholarly article, appearing
in Learned Publishing (when I had a full article in that
publication, it was not peer-reviewed). Oh, and it’s by Jeffrey Beall—the
piece appears to be another attack on gold OA. So his one solid piece of
evidence is…quoting himself. Go
through that list again. I don’t know about you, but it strikes me as
remarkably thin. The first comment, by Steve Hitchcock, is interesting—
as it accepts the quotes at face value (which I’m not prepared to do for
either Haank or Beall): You make two assertions in your opening sentence:
1 there was a serials crisis, 2 this led to open access. Your
selective quotes do not show either, so it is hard to justify your
headline point on this evidence. What your quotes may show, however, is
that the serials crisis was about journals pricing, and the Big Deal was a
response to that. But the Big Deal is not open access, and the case for
open access is not over. As
for the first assertion, in a way it’s true: there never was a serials
crisis, there were—and are— many serials (primarily journals) crises
affecting different segments of academia in different ways. The next
comment, by Pierre de Villiers, makes another interesting point (although
I partly disagree with the first sentence, which offers too narrow a case
for OA): The
main case for open access is free access to public- funded research. The
big deal does not solve that, and actually worsen the situation by
consuming library budgets in favour of those big deal-publishers,
excluding journals from smaller publishers. I also doubt the statement
that the farabove- inflation in serial subscriptions came to an end. Is
this supported by evidence? Beall
“responds” to the question with a non-answer: “Please see quotation
number 4, which shows that libraries pay a lot less per journal title than
they did in the past.” Actually, the quotation doesn’t say that at
all. It says the median ARL library, not in any way typical of all
academic libraries, gets four times as many serials (most of them,
presumably, not refereed scholarly journals) as it did a decade
earlier. It says nothing about how much that library paid. Across
extensive doctoral institutions, a somewhat larger group of libraries, the
median library also spent 51% more on serials in 2010 than in 2000 after
adjusting for inflation, which pretty much answers Villiers’
question. (For all academic libraries taken as a group and not adjusting
for inflation, 2010 serials spending was considerably more than twice the
level of 2000 spending—and close to 65% higher after inflation.
If you want to see a truly gulp-inducing graph, consider ARL’s “Expenditure
Trends in ARL
Libraries, 1986-2011”
with its 402% increase in serials expenditures.) Dr.
Gunn offers a quick snark questioning the assertion that academics are
doing just fine—and Andrew Miller basically says that’s true, quoting
yet another publisher association report…and admitting that he’s an
Elsevier publisher, perhaps not a wholly disinterested party. Mike Taylor
takes the light approach: Jeffrey,
was this post a satire? If so, of what? Sorry if I am being dense, I just
don’t get it. To
which Beall responds by basically repeating his absurd assertion. Karen
Coyle chose to point to my book The Big Deal and the Damage Done,
which came about partly because of other claims that the Big Deal had
solved the serials crisis, and says my analysis suggests Beall is wrong.
His response? I think you’ve got it backwards. He should have read the
sources I cite first. To
which I felt a need to respond: I had in fact read most of the sources you
cite. The suggestion that quotable sources, mostly publishingrelated,
count for more than the actual facts is an amusing one, but I think I’ll
go with the real world for now. (Also, as has been said before, the
serials crisis is neither the only nor the primary reason for OA.) In
fairness—and because it’s a nice touch—I should quote Vinz
Clortho’s response to my comment: Jeffrey’s
sources are better. He said so. Which
is, in essence, what Beall’s trainwreck of a post boils down to:
Beall’s right because Beall says so. And has mostly Beall and publishing
industry assertions to back him up. Well, and eight New Zealand
universities. The
comments for this post served as an interesting set of revelations into
Beall’s mind and methods. Joe Kraus points out that unaffiliated
scholars and others (and those not affiliated with the very largest
institutions) would not agree that the serials crisis was over, and cites
others who also would not agree—including students at his “well funded
private university library in south Denver” who don’t have access to
some journals because even Kraus’s library can’t afford it. Beall’s
response? Go for the jugular: So,
let me check my understanding, the University of Denver, which charges
outrageously high tuition, especially in its mediocre library school, is
worried about people who don’t have access to some scholarly
publications? If DU is so worried about “access,” then it ought to
lower its tuition. Also, DU just completed a 35 million dollar renovation
of its library and you whine about not being able to afford a couple
four-thousand dollar journal titles? This doesn’t add up. Whew. Extent to which this is in any way a refutation of what Kraus says: Zero. Extent to which this is pure ad hominem on an institutional level….well, read it yourself. Kraus agrees “this doesn’t add up”: Posted by Friends of Open Access
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||