Publisher Support for Self-Archiving: Laudatory or Predatory?
2018-06-29T19:52:08Z (GMT) by
Most publishers with self-archiving policies in the SHERPA RoMEO database allow authors to deposit their articles in a repository or post them to a website – supporting the green route to open access. Nevertheless, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) enthusiastically endorsed legislation proposed and defeated twice in the United States to prohibit federal agencies from mandating repository deposits of articles reporting on research they funded. The AAP also endorsed the Finch Report issued in the United Kingdom. The Report denigrated repository deposits and elevated open access publishing – the gold route to open access – as the preferred path to expand public access. Given that the green route is more affordable than the gold route (Houghton et al 2009), that the green route exceeds the gold route in growth rate and proportion of articles available open access (Gargouri et al 2012), and that mandates increase repository deposits (Van Noorden 2013, Poynder May 2012), these are puzzling tactics for publishers professing to support self-archiving. Despite conspicuous progress in providing open access to scholarly articles, there is a steady, unsettling undercurrent stirred by traditional publishers that could undermine the green route to open access. This article examines data and discourse to better understand publisher perspectives on self-archiving and, based on this understanding, urges action from open access advocates.