When you want to "maximize researcher access to maximize research uptake and
impact", sure that's fine, but then how do you define "researcher"?
Historically, researchers have been separated out from society, at least in
part, by superior access to research facilities - so it's hard to do intense
chemistry research without access to a laboratory and specialized equipment.Â
I'm going to go as far as saying that access to a good lab and good research
tools is more important than is a phd or any paper credential. That's still
true, but maybe there is now a little bit of a reversal in what minimum
technology is necessary in order to do research in a field. So, in 1850, maybe
scientific tools were simpler to construct than in 1970. But, maybe now, and
especially with 3D printers, there will be a back swing where it becomes easier
and cheaper to construct tools for conducting original scientific research.Â
This opens the exciting possibility that access to a lab and being inside the
institution/corporation/government funding that lab won't be a prerequisite to
participation.
By separating "researchers" from the public, you perpetuate this tie-in with
scientific research to specific entities which fund research.
What I foresee in limiting access to researchers is arguments about who is a
researcher, anger that private corporations might fit this definition while high
schoolers working on science projects don't, and generally an entrenchment of
access barriers which exist for good reason (scientific research equipment is
expensive) but might disappear in the future.
If the general public really is not interested in accessing publicly funded
research, then they won't access it. I suspect most people won't. I don't go
reading PubMed abstracts for fun in lieu of watching sitcoms. However, by
excluding the public, you exclude the very small minority of the public who want
to read scientific research. This can be young people, too young to hold a
phd,
perhaps to young to hold a high school diploma, but who have advanced to a point
where they can follow and build on high level research. This can be people
suffering from a disease which gives them a burning desire to learn as much
about that disease as is possible.
At the broad end, defining "researcher" as someone who is interested in
researching the topic, might sweep these people in, but then doesn't access for
researchers mean the same thing as access for the public? a member of the public
becomes a researcher just by stepping forward and jumping into scientific
papers.
I realize that the need to frame language in a way that gets support is
important, but "public" is easier to define than "researcher". Even if access
for researchers were an easier mandate to push through politically (which it
might not be), if the goal is to avoid friction then maybe looking at the
friction years out in defining and redefining researcher is something to
consider.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
Some comments on Richard Poynder's interview of Mike Rossner in
"Open & Shut"
http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2012/03/rups-mike-rossner-doing-whats-right.html
Practically speaking, public access (i.e., free online access to
research,
for everyone) includes researcher access (free online access to
research
for researchers).
Moreover, free online access to research, for everyone, includes
both public
access and researcher access.
So what difference does it make what you call it?
The answer is subtle, but important:
The goal of providing "public access to publicly funded research"
has a great deal of appeal (rightly) Â to both tax-paying voters and
to politicians.
So promoting open access as "public access" is a very powerful and
effective way to motivate and promote the adoption of open access
self-archiving
mandates by public research funders such as NIH and the many other
federal
funders in the US that would be covered by the Federal Research
Public
Access Act (FRPAA).
That's fine for publicly funded research.
But not all research -- nor even most research -- is publicly
funded.
All research worldwide, however, whether funded or unfunded,
originates
from institutions: The universal providers of research are the
world's
universities and research institutes.
To motivate institutions to adopt open access self-archiving
mandates
for all of their research output requires giving them and their
researchers
a credible, valid reason for doing so.
And for institutions and their researchers, "public access to
publicly
funded research" is not a credible, valid reason for providing open
access
to their research output:
Institutions and their researchers know full well that apart from a
few
scientific and scholarly research areas (notably, health-related
research),
most of their research output is of no interest to the public (and
often
inaccessible technically, even if accessible electronically).
Institutions and their researchers need a credible and valid reason
for
providing open access to their research output.
And that credible and valid reason is so as to provided access for
all of the intended users of their research -- researchers
themselves -- rather
than just those who are at an institution that can afford to
subscribe to
the journal in which it was published.
Subtle, but important.
It has become obvious that the >75% of researchers who have not
been providing open access to their research for over two decades
now -- despite the fact that the Web has made it both possible and
easy for them to do so -- will not do so until and unless it is
mandated.
That's why mandates matter.
The rationale for the mandate, however, has to be credible and valid
for all research and all researchers. "Public access to publicly
funded research" is not.
But "maximize researcher access to maximize research uptake and
impact" is.
And it has the added virtue of not only maximizing research usage,
applications and progress -- to the benefit of the public  -- but
public
access to publicly funded research also comes with the territory, as
an added benefit.
So Mike Rossner is quite right that the two are functionally
equivalent.
It is just that they are not strategically equivalent -- if the
objective is
to convince institutions and their researchers that it is in their
interest to
mandate and provide open access.
Stevan Harnad
On 2012-03-27, at 7:40 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Bravo to Mike Rossner for his position statement in favor of OA
mandate
> legislation. Everything he says is valid and true.
>
> (But it would be just as valid if it were said on behalf of the
(far more realistic
> and demonstrable) need for "researcher access" as if it is said on
behalf of
> the (rather more idealogical and less realistic) need for "public
access" --
> though the latter, I know, is much more  persuasive with MPs and
voters,
> and that's what counts...)
>
> That niggle nigged, let me repeat that Mike will be remembered and
thanked
> historically for having said -- forthrightly, and with no
self-serving obfuscation --
> what all publishers should have been saying about OA all along.
>
> Mike represents what is still honorable in the tradition of
scholarly publishing.
>
> Stevan
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Peter Suber <peter.su...@gmail.com>
>> Date: March 26, 2012 8:47:46 PM EDT
>> Subject: [BOAI] Position on Public Access
>>
>> [Forwarding from Mike Rossner at Rockefeller U Press, via
Liblicense. Â --Peter Suber.]
>>
>>
>> From: Mike Rossner <ross...@mail.rockefeller.edu>
>> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:32:38 -0400
>>
>> For the reference of Liblicense readers, the following letter was
just
>> sent to all Rockefeller University Press subscribers:
>>
>> Dear Librarian,
>>
>> I am writing to clarify the position of The Rockefeller
University
>> Press (RUP) on various legislative efforts regarding public
access to
>> publications resulting from federally funded research. Â RUP is a
>> member of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the
>> Association of American University Presses (AAUP), who have both
>> recently provided position statements on this issue. Â However,
RUP
>> does not agree with those statements.
>>
>> RUP is a subscription-based publisher that publishes three
biomedical
>> research journals: The Journal of Cell Biology, The Journal of
>> Experimental Medicine, and The Journal of General Physiology. Â We
have
>> released our back content to the public since 2001 â long before
any
>> federal mandates existed â because we believe we have an
obligation to
>> give something back to the public that funds the research we
publish.
>>
>> The AAP supported the now-defunct Research Works Act. Â RUP
strongly
>> opposed that act.
>>
>> Both the AAP and AAUP have opposed the Federal Research Public
Access
>> Act (FRPAA), which has been re-introduced into both the House and
>> Senate. Although numerous non-profit publishers signed the AAP
letter,
>> the RUP does not stand with those publishers. Â RUP supports FRPAA
in
>> principle. Â We know from the NIH public access policy that
mandated
>> access to the results of federally-funded research is necessary
to get
>> certain publishers to release this content to the public, and we
>> support legislation to extend the NIH policy to other large
federal
>> funding agencies.
>>
>> The AAP and AAUP use a one-size-does-not-fit-all argument to
oppose
>> FRPAA because the drafted legislation calls for all large federal
>> agencies to mandate public access six months after publication.
>> Although it can be argued that a six-month embargo period may not
be
>> suitable for all disciplines covered by FRPAA, this is not
grounds to
>> oppose the legislation altogether. Â It should be supported in
>> principle and could be modified during Congressional review to
provide
>> the flexibility for each agency to choose its own embargo period.
>>
>> The continuing rhetoric from the AAP and AAUP about having
ongoing
>> "conversations" about access to the results of publicly funded
>> research is outdated. Â There is legislation on the table that
will
>> help to make public access a reality now.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Mike Rossner
>> Executive Director
>>
>> These comments are the opinion of the author and do not
necessarily
>> reflect the position of The Rockefeller University.
>>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
