OSTP, Shipwrecks, Evidence

A recent essay in PNAS made me nearly collapse in peals of laughter, while simultaneously realizing our industry has become so adrift that many parts of it are now awash in tides of absurdity.

In the essay, Amy Brand, Mike Stebbins, and other self-appointed policy wonks argue that OA as currently realized is a problem, that the OSTP policy could make it worse, and that any future policies need to be “evidence-based” to avoid the pitfalls they’ve identified at this very late date.

Some of the paragraphs are just mind-blowing in how they echo warnings about OA some of us made years and years ago, enduring backlash, harassment, bullying, and ostracism, but which this crew now appropriates as if these are new insights, suddenly illuminated.

First, there is an implicit criticism of Nelson’s OSTP policy, which may cause many to recall that Stebbins was involved in the earlier and more tolerable OSTP approach of the 12-month embargo — so there’s potentially some defensiveness here, as well. But let’s not forget that this initial policy established the habit of the government meddling in private enterprise under the auspices of unrelated funding decisions:

For many years, a 12-month embargo afforded by earlier federal policy directives allowed the Green OA model to thrive in parallel with the traditional journal subscription model. Gold OA is likely to become the preferred business model for scientific journals after the new OSTP directive, with several implications for article volume and quality.

They then begin their lecture about what the APC model can be expected to deliver, even though the downsides were apparent from the start for many, and despite having caused glaring, costly, and damaging problems in scholarly publishing subsequently on full display for all to see: