I would simplify it further: "Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress, funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to their published research results."
Any form of dirigisme as to how this is to be achieved is best avoided. Avoiding prescriptions for the means helps keep the focus on the goal and also leaves the door open for imaginative ways of convincing researchers, funders and institutions, and even of achieving more OA in possibly more effective ways. Jan Velterop On 1 May 2012, at 11:54, Stevan Harnad wrote: > I completely agree with my old comrade-at-arms Eric van de Velde > (below) that one, short, simple, doable message is needed. > > BOAI 10, Enabling Open Scholarship and the SPARC > OA Policy group are each working on providing such > a message. (BOAI's will be released shortly by Peter Suber). > > The messages are still being crafted, but I certainly know > what I think the message ought to be: > > -------- > > Research Funders and Institutions: > > 1. Open Access (OA) maximizes research usage, impact and > progress. > http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html > > 2. Mandate (i.e., require) that all researchers provide OA > by self-archiving the final, refereed draft of all > peer-reviewed journal articles in your institutional > repository. > http://roarmap.eprints.org/ > > 3. Free software is available to create an institutional > repository if you don't yet have one. > http://roar.eprints.org/ > > 4. The optimal OA mandate is called ID/OA, > with deposit designated as the sole mechanism for > submitting publications for institutional performance review. > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/737-.html > > Do the above, and do not complicate with any of the > following for the time being. They will all happen naturally > of their own accord once ID/OA mandates prevail globally: > > X1. "Gold" OA Journal Publishing > X2. Libre OA re-use rights > X3. Copyright reform > X4. Open Data > X5. Publishing reform > X6. Peer review reform > X7. Digital preservation > X8. etc. > > -------- > > We have not yet reached the fabled (and many times prematurely > announced) "tipping point" for OA. Eric, despite heroic efforts, did > not succeed in persuading CalTech to adopt an OA mandate > hence his worries about whether it is possible at all: > > It *is* possible. ROARMAP contains examples of successful, sustainable > OA mandates. See especially Southampton ECS, Liege, QUT and Minho. > > The secret is to keep it simple, forget about X1-X8 for now, and to keep > trying. > As more OA mandates are adopted (with the help of policy guidance for > Enabling Open Scholarship, BOAI 10, SPARC OA Policy and -- let's hope > -- the adoption of FRPAA), the mandate momentum will accelerate, gloablly > and irreversibly. > > Just keep it simple (ID/OA) and don't over-reach! > > Stevan Harnad > > On 2012-04-30, at 6:22 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote: > >> Stevan and others: >> This is also a response to the long thread on "Open Access Priorities: Peer >> Access and Public Access". I am responding in this thread as it includes the >> issue of "OA Pragmatics". >> >> Over the years, you and others on this list have amassed a wealth of >> analysis and data that favors OA. In the process, you and most of us have >> our favored OA mechanisms and policies. And GOAL provides spirited debates >> on every OA detail there is. >> >> Yet, detail is not what is needed. We need a clear and simple message that >> is capable of inducing many independent strong-willed individuals to change >> behavior. Most of these individuals are part of old institutions with >> long-ingrained traditions. Changing their behavior is a political problem, >> not one of analytics. >> >> The target group for the OA campaign consists of PhDs, and we tend to think >> that they are best approached with analysis. That is true, but for most OA >> is at most a peripheral issue on which they do not wish to spend a lot of >> time. The Harvard memo is an example of a complicated political message: it >> does not say to do one thing, it says to consider doing five or six things >> if the opportunity should so arise. Your list of priorities is clearer, but >> it is long and (politically) complicated. >> >> Policies (like mandates) are difficult to maintain over many years. In year >> one, there may be a motivated university president/chancellor/provost/... to >> serve as enforcer, but by year 2, 3, 4, or 5, this person moves on, and the >> mandate-exception list grows, partially erasing any OA gains. Because of the >> distributed nature of all of the research institutions, this is asynchronous >> process. Today, it is Harvard that is interested in OA and the journal >> crisis. Tomorrow, it will be other major institutions. Yet, many of the >> proposed OA policies will only be effective if implemented at a significant >> fraction of institutions simultaneously. >> >> Although starting an institutional repository is now easy from a technical >> point of view, it still generates a mountain of meetings, discussions, etc. >> Many initiatives die a slow death or are kept barely alive because of such >> implementation and political delays. >> >> What we need is one focused message that can be used by a >> president/chancellor/provost/... who is aware of the OA value proposition >> and wants to do something something about it now. These leaders exist, but >> they cannot afford to spend three years fighting the fight only to have it >> reversed after they leave. A few may be willing to fight six months, perhaps >> even a year, if they can put in place an irreversible policy to lead their >> institution to OA. >> --Eric. >> >> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com >> >> Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 >> Telephone: (626) 376-5415 >> Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde >> E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk> >> wrote: >> On 2012-04-29, at 3:52 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: >> >>> By all means where there are opportunities to promote mandates >>> let us do that, but not at the expense of making the moral and >>> societal responsibility case for OA. >> >> By all means where there are opportunities to make the moral and >> societal responsibility case for OA let us do that, but not at the expense >> of promoting mandates. >> >> Researchers themselves are the only ones who can provide >> OA, and their institutions and funders (not "dinner parties or the pub") >> are the only ones can mandate that they do it -- not for ideological >> reasons, but out of practical self-interest. >> >> And, to repeat: OA means public access too. >> >> Stevan Harnad >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL at eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL at eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
