University of Bristol

Mike Taylor

In the first of two disapointing scholarly-communication announcements
last week, [Jisc announced its
report](https://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/all/jisc-review-of-uk-open-access-and-transitional-agreements-finds-positives-but-that-a-full-transition-is-not-in-sight)
on progress towards open access in the UK. The key finding is:

> Despite improvements -- rapid growth in transitional agreements,
> sector savings and high levels of funder compliance -- a full
> transition to open access will not happen soon.

But that's not the part that disappoints me. Here's the part that
disappoints me:

> Transitional agreements were envisioned as a temporary mechanism to
> support a transition to full open access. They set out to constrain
> costs for institutions and drive rapid growth of open access at a UK
> and global level.
>
> However, the review suggests they are at risk of becoming the 'norm'
> and that the rate of transition is too slow.

Sometimes I think people don't know what "transitional" means. Folks, a
transitional agreement is *by definition* one that gets you from one
place to another --- in this case, from a subscription-based scholarly
publishing ecosystem to an open-access one. It's what a transitional
agreement is *for*. If it does *not* do that, then it's not
transitional. In particular, a transitional agreement that becomes "the
'norm\'" is a stalled agreement. It is, unambiguously, a failure.

So that was the part that disappointed me. And here comes the part that
infuriates me (quoted from Professor Stephen Decent, chair of the Jisc
UUK Content Negotiation Strategy Group):

> Despite significant sector-wide investment, the transition from the
> paywall system to full open access remains elusive. It's clear that
> our open research scholarship objectives are out of step with many
> publishers' commercial strategies.

Why does Jisc give a nematode's anal sphincter about publishers'
commercial strategies? Has it forgotten that it's the customer here?
Jisc is not beholden to the preferences of publishers, publishers are
required (or, in a sane world, would be) to provide what Jisc wants.

Look. If I go into Tesco to buy a cabbage, it may happen that I find
that my cabbage-purchasing objectives are out of step with Tesco's
commercial strategy. But if that happens, I go and buy my cabbage from
Sainsbury's instead.

What I don't do is buy a Tesco bath-towel instead, because selling
bath-towels is their commercial strategy. Why not? Because I want a
cabbage, not a bath towel.

I trust I do not need to spell this out, but I will anyway for avoidance
of doubt: **Jisc should not buy what these publishers are selling, but
should instead find publishers that are selling what Jisc want to buy.**

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[doi:10.59350/5vg5w-edj97](https://doi.org/10.59350/5vg5w-edj97)


In the first of two disapointing scholarly-communication announcements last week, Jisc announced its report on progress towards open access in the UK. The key finding is:  But that’s not the part that disappoints me. Here’s the part that disappoints me:  Sometimes I think people don’t know what “transitional” means.

Jisc should not buy services that it does not want

In what is by now a much-reported story,
[@DNLee](https://twitter.com/DNLee5), who writes [the *Urban Scientist*
blog](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urban-scientist/) on [the
*Scientific American* blog
network](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/), was invited by [Biology
Online](http://www.biology-online.org/) to write a guest-post for their
blog. On being told this was a non-paying gig, she politely declined:
"Thank you very much for your reply. But I will have to decline your
offer. Have a great day." To which Biology Online's blog editor Ofek
replied "Are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?"

So far, so horrible. I had never heard of Biology Online before this,
and won't be seeking them out. You can add my name of the long list of
people who certainly won't be writing free content for them.

It's what happened next that bothers me.

DNLee [posted on her
blog](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urban-scientist/2013/10/11/give-trouble-to-others-but-not-me/) about
what happened --- rather a restrained post, which took the opportunity
to discuss the wider implications rather than cursing out the
perpetrator.

And *Scientific American* **deleted the post**.

They just deleted it.

This bothers me much more than the original incident, because I had no
idea who Biology Online are, but thought I knew what *Scientific
American* was. Looks like I didn't. All I know for sure about them now
is that they're a company that accepts advertising revenue from Biology
Online. Just saying.

Not a word was said to DNLee about this censorship by the people running
the network. The post just vanished, bam. If you follow [the
link](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/urban-scientist/2013/10/11/give-trouble-to-others-but-not-me/),
it currently says "You have reached this page due to an error". Yes. An
error on the part of the blog-network management.

(This, by the way, is one of the reasons I don't expect *Sauropod
Vertebra Picture of the Week* ever to join one of these networks. I will
not tolerate someone else making a decision to take down one of my
posts.)

What makes this much worse is that *Scientific American*'s Editor in
Chief Mariette DiChristina has flat-out lied about this incident *at
least* once. First she tweeted "[@sciam is a publication for discovering
science. The post was not appropriate for this area & was therefore
removed.](https://twitter.com/mdichristina/status/389031397341794304)"
Then after a day of silence, she blogged "[we could not quickly verify
the facts of the blog post and consequently for legal reasons we had to
remove the
post](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/at-scientific-american/2013/10/13/a-message-from-mariette-dichristina-editor-in-chief/)".

So which was it, SciAm? Did you censor the post because it was
off-topic? Or because of a perceived legal threat? Or, since we know *at
least* one of these mutually contradictory claims isn't true, maybe
*neither* of them is, and you removed it avoid inconveniencing a
sponsor?

DiChristina's blog-post is a classic nonpoplogy. It says *nothing* about
the original slur that gave rise to all this, and it doesn't apologise
to DNLee for censoring her perfectly reasonable blog-post. What it
*does* do is blame the victim by implying that DNLee's post is somehow
illegal. (You can judge for yourself whether it is by reading one of
[the](http://neurodojo.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/today-in-what-hell-is-wrong-with-people.html)
[many](http://isisthescientist.com/2013/10/11/tell-someone-no-get-called-a-whore-standingwithdnlee-batsignal/)
[mirrors](http://www.thejayfk.com/?p=3141).)

Then there's this: "for legal reasons we had to remove the post". *What*
legal reasons? When did the SciAm legal team get involved in this? (Did
they at all? I am sceptical.) Have you actually been threatened by
Biology Online? (Again, I have my doubts.) Even if a threat has been
received, it's at best cowardly of SciAm to cave so immediately, and
grotesquely unprofessional not even to bother notifying DNLee.

So SciAm are digging themselves deeper and deeper into this hole. Even
their usually prolific and reliable blog editor
[@BoraZ](https://twitter.com/BoraZ) has gone uncharacteristically quiet
--- I can only hope because he, too, is being silenced, rather than
because he's complicit.

There are only two ways for the SciAm blogging network to get out of
this with some shreds of their reputation intact. They need to either
**show clearly that DNLee was lying about Biology Online**, in which
case they would merely have mismanaged this incident; or they need
to **reinstate her post and apologise properly.** "Properly" means "We
screwed up because of our cowardice, please forgive us", not "We're
sorry if some people were offended by our decision to do this thing that
we're going to keep claiming was OK". Because it wasn't.

Right then, SciAm. Where now?


In what is by now a much-reported story, @DNLee, who writes the
<em>
 Urban Scientist
</em>
blog on the
<em>
 Scientific American
</em>
blog network, was invited by Biology Online to write a guest-post for their blog.

Publicaciones de Rogue Scholar

Jisc should not buy services that it does not want

Mike’s 2¢ on Scientific American‘s silencing of DNLee