Thomas Your original assertion was:
> It is libraries, rather than publishers or researchers, that hold back open > access. The point I was trying to make was that it is researchers who maintain the current system by submitting their papers to subscription journals; it is researchers who who maintain the current system by signing their rights to subscription journals so limiting open access options; it is researchers who who maintain the current system by peer reviewing papers in subscription journals; and it is funders and administrators who who maintain the current system by setting evaluation terms and conditions that encourage researchers to publish in subscription journals. All of these actions help to hold back open access and have absolutely nothing to do with libraries. Of course libraries purchase the subscriptions, but they don't do this on a whim. They do it because the researchers, administrators, and students at their institutions require them to do it. David On 11 Jan 2012, at 10:34, Thomas Krichel wrote: > > David Prosser writes > >> Oh come on Thomas, I know you like to be provocative, but: > > I think it better to stick to the issues, rather than personalise > the debate. > >> It is not libraries that submit their papers to publishers and sign >> over exclusive rights, nor is it libraries that compel researchers >> to do so. > > This is orthogonal to the open vs toll-gated access issue, since the > sign-over could occur also to an open-access outlet. I agree that > blank sign-over of rights is bad in many cases but this not what the > issue is about here. > >> It is not libraries that provide peer-review services to publishers for free > > Again this is orthogonal to the open vs toll-gated access issue > because the peer review is essentially the same process for open > access as for toll-gated journals. > >> It is not libraries that decide promotion and tenure conditions, or >> make research funding decisions based on the journal in which >> researchers publish, rather than the quality of the research itself. > > Again this is essentially orthogonal to the open vs closed access > issue because the evaluation of research by the outlet is > independent of the fact if the research is in an open access vs a > toll-gated journal. I concede that the majority of high quality > outlets are old. Thus evaluation by outlet introduces a bias. > > Dismissing academics as only looking at the publishing outlet when > evaluation research quality strikes me as provocative but it's a > provocation that is not central to the toll-gated vs open-access > debate. > >> If libraries unilaterally cancelled all subscriptions today the >> immediate result would not be open access tomorrow - it would be the >> sacking of library directors by their institutions! > > This is completely unproven. I suggest to give half of the money > saved for faculty travel and/or submission fees to journals and half > to institutional repository (IR) development. All jobs in the > library will be saved and new staff for IR development will be hired > in the library. My assertion is as unproven as David's, of course. > > Now back to bed... > > Cheers, > > Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel > http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 > skype: thomaskrichel > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
