Responses below. On Sun October 3 2004 10:51 am, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Jean-Claude Guedon wrote: > > OSI is not subsidizing OA journals. It is subsidizing authors from > > disadvantaged countries and institutions so that they may submit to OA > > journals. OSI has also supported the setting up of repositories and of > > guides to help doing so. > > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/grants-awarded.shtml > > (The posting to which you replied was about both OSI and JISC, which *is* > subsidizing journal conversion to OA publication.)
Then your wording was ambiguous at best. > > Perhaps it would be a good idea if OSI subsidized authors from > disadvantaged countries and institutions to provide OA to their articles by > self-archiving them in their institutional archives: Then the subsidy might > generate more OA articles from the same author and institution for the same > amount of subsidy money! Why would authors need subsidies to self-archive, given all you have written in the past about the ease with which this is done? > > My recommendations would extend substantially OSI's current efforts on > behalf of setting up and filling institutional OA archives. > > > > (1) The cost of subsidising the conversion of an institution to OA > > > self-archiving is far less than the cost of subsidising the > > > conversion of a journal to OA-publishing. > > > > OSI does not do the latter. > > Maybe it would be a good idea -- per OA subsidy dollar spent -- to consider > doing so, then. The subsidy could be reserved to the Developing world, if > preferred. Are you saying now we should be supporting the conversion of journals to OA, at leas tin the Developing World? I do not understand you at all now. > > > > (2) The return -- in annual number of OA articles -- on subsidising > > > the conversion of one institution to self-archiving is far greater > > > than the return on converting one journal, and far more likely to > > > propagate to other institutions of its own accord. > > > > Again, OSI does not do the latter. > > Always worth keeping an Open Mind on such matters... Indeed, and I suppose that if we did follow this recommendation, you would immediately turn around and berate OSI for supporting journal conversion rather than archive building. This is becoming quite silly. > > > > (3) Converting one institution to OA self-archiving (unlike > > > converting one journal to OA publishing) propagates over all > > > institutional departments/disciplines. > > > (*This is also the reason why it is so important that the national > > > self-archiving mandates should be for distributed institutional > > > self-archiving, as recommended by the UK Select Committee, rather > > > than for central self-archiving, as recommended by the US House > > > Committee.*) > > > > This is an interesting hypothesis, but it is only a hypothesis. > > And your pending posting, to which I shall reply shortly, is likewise a > hypothesis. And rival hypotheses must be weighed on the basis of the > supporting and contrary evidence and reasons, as I will try to do in a > later posting. The data on the rate of both actual and potential growth in > central archives, institutional archives, and OA journals tends to support > my hypothesis. So does logic, if one thinks through the possibilities, > probabailities, and practicalities. (And so does a forthcoming analysis by > Rowland & Swan, commissioned by JISC.) > > http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=analysis > > > Result of this exchange: I have one interesting idea that I shall look > > into; for the rest, I see hypotheses and statements that do not apply to > > OSI's present policies. > > Try to keep an Open Mind on policy: The Open Access landscape is changing, > and so is the Open Society's potential contribution to it! And we have to > keep thinking until we get it right... May I return the compliment. Try to keep an open mind too and not define too narrow a path to paradise. > > Stevan Harnad
