In history, the question of birth or origin is one that has been set aside at least since Nietzsche when he presented his notion of "genealogy"; it has been recast more recently by Michel Foucault with his (related) notion of "archeology". In this respect, one could also mention the distinction between genesis and beginnings (definitely in the plural (genèse et commencements in French; viz. "les commencements de la technologie", a somewhat legendary article published in a somewhat "confidential" (i.e. poorly distributed) periodical by Jacques Guillerme and Jan Sebestik.
Open Access, a little like the Internet, can claim some important moments without which history would have probably unfolded differently, but even those moments act only as "conditions of possibility" for the future to shape itself as it did, and not as causes. By themselves, none of these moments can account for the historical process easily observed later on. In fact, most of the time, the link can be proposed only retrospectively. The "OA movement" is made up of various parts which the three words in the title summarize rather neatly: it is open, is is about access, and it is a movement. Each of these parts, taken separately, has its own history; conjoining the three together opens the possibility of yet another historical narrative. Anyone with a bit of Hegelianism in his/her head could well argue that the ability of commercial publishers to create an inelastic market out of journal trade, and thereby extract incredible levels of profits (the thesis) have triggered a complex antithesis, in which OA is to be found (but the antithesis is larger than OA). As for the ultimate synthesis, we shall see, but the grounds of conflict are bound to shift as soon as enhanced publishing gets clearly foregrounded. Wait for Elsevier to offer "free" page images, claim to an OA publisher, and then sell costly "executable papers"... :-) My two cents' worth. Jean-Claude Guédon -------- Message d'origine-------- De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Eric F. Van de Velde List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: mer. 19/10/2011 20:26 Ã: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : Re: The Birth of the Open Access Movement Stevan: Any movement has many parents and many birthdays. This is the one I remember fondly for a variety of reasons, one of them: that was the first time I met you in person! --Eric. On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hate to have to throw a blanket on this 12th birthday parade, but the > birth of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) (a protocol for making online > bibliographic databases -- initially called "archives," later re-baptised > "repositories -- interoperable) in 1999 certainly was *not* the birth of > the Open Access Movement. > http://www.dlib.org/dlib/february00/vandesompel-oai/02vandesompel-oai.html > > Either the Open Access Movement began (as I prefer to think) in the '80s or > perhaps even the '70s, when (some) researchers first began making their > papers freely accessible online in anonymous FTP archives, or it began with > the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI, 2001) where the term "Open > Access" was first coined (a few months after, just as "Open Archives" was > coined a few months after the Santa Fe meeting). > http://www.soros.org/openaccess > > Nothing here to compete in primacy for, however, since the progress of the > OA movement has been dismayingly slow, ever since, and still is, to this > very day. > > But it's particularly ironic to see the origins of the OA movement (warts > and all) attributed to OAI when in fact the idea of freeing the refereed > research literature from access toll barriers was very explicitly (and > exceedingly rudely) disavowed by the prime organizer of the three organizers > of the Santa Fe meeting. The archival record for this seems to have > disappeared, but I've saved the two postings from which the following is > excerpted: > > *Tue, 30 Nov 1999 20:14:30 -0700* > ".someone also forwarded me from the times higher ed supp 12 nov 1999: > > *"Harnad, who attended the Santa Fe meeting, said all conference > participants agreed that scientific and scholarly publishing was being 'held > hostage' and **needed to be freed. 'They all felt ... . Most wanted...'"* > > > "i don't remember anyone saying anything about hostages (though i did miss > the end of the first day) -- isn't it demagoguery to impute words and > sentiments?..." > > The rest of the posting expands on these sentiments: > > http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/oai1.htm > http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/oai2.htm > > > 30 November will also be the 12th anniversary of the last time I ever > exchanged words with the prime organizer in question. > > Stevan Harnad > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde < > eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From my blog at http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/ > > > > The Birth of the Open Access Movement > > > > Twelve years ago, on October 21st 1999, Clifford Lynch and Don Waters > called > > to order a meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The organizers, Paul > Ginsparg, > > Rick Luce, and Herbert Van de Sompel, had a modest goal: generalize the > High > > Energy Physics preprint archive into a Universal Preprint Service > available > > to any scholarly discipline. (Currently known as arXiv and hosted by > Cornell > > University, the HEP preprint archive was then hosted at the Los Alamos > > National Laboratory.) > > > > This meeting constructed the technical foundation for open access: the > Open > > Archives Initiative and the OAI Protocol for Metadata Harvesting > (OAI-PMH). > > It coined the term repository. (Yes, it was a compromise.) It inspired > > participants. Some went home and developed OAI-compliant repository > > software. Some built or expanded institutional and disciplinary > > repositories. Some started initiatives to raise awareness. > > > > At the meeting, there were high-flying discussions on the merits of > > disciplinary versus institutional repositories. Some argued that > > disciplinary repositories would be better at attracting content. Others > > (including me) thought institutional repositories were easier to sustain > for > > the long haul, because costs are distributed. In retrospect, both sides > were > > right and wrong. In the years that followed, even arXiv, our > inspirational > > model, had problems sustaining its funding, but the HEP community rallied > to > > its support. Institutional repositories got relatively easily funded, but > > never attracted a satisfactory percentage of research output. (It is too > > early to tell whether sufficiently strong mandates will be widely > adopted.) > > > > There were high hopes for universal free access to the scholarly > literature, > > for open access journals, for lower-priced journals, for access to data, > for > > better research infrastructure. Many of these goals remain high hopes. > Yet, > > none of the unfulfilled dreams can detract from the many significant > > accomplishments of the Open Access Movement. > > > > Happy Twelfth Birthday to the Open Access Movement! > > -- > > --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.vandeve...@gmail.com > > > > -- --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.vandeve...@gmail.com
