On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM, David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> wrote:
> While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the > entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is > having confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State. > Meetings that are apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act: > > > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf > > I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning. -- David > Spot-on, David. Elsevier's "confidential" lobbying and deal-making <https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=GJhyVJa4I8qC8QfFsIHIDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:openaccess.eprints.org+(lobby+OR+lobbying)> -- especially with the UK's gullible government that led to the infamous Finch fiasco <https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=GJhyVJa4I8qC8QfFsIHIDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:openaccess.eprints.org+finch> (not yet over, but damage-limited now by the HEFCE/REF2020 immediate-deposit mandate <https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=GJhyVJa4I8qC8QfFsIHIDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:openaccess.eprints.org+((HEFCE+OR+REF2020)+%22immediate+deposit%22)>) -- is where the real action (and damage) is. The endless, empty Berlin/Max-Planck performance series is of no interest or consequence. The silly sniping at EOS by PM-R & RA are just light entertainment at a time when there is no substantive OA news to report. *Ceterum censeo*,* if effective immediate-deposit mandates are adopted by all funders and institutions, the Elsevier lobbying will be completely unavailing and ineffectual. * Of course Elsevier knows this, and hence the thrust of their "confidential" lobbying is transparent to anyone who has been paying attention: (1) Show "confidential" financial data that make it look as if OA can be had at no extra cost over current expenditures, (2) in the form of paid Gold OA, (3) if funders and institutions simply "leave it to us <https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=GJhyVJa4I8qC8QfFsIHIDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=host:openaccess.eprints.org+(%22leave+it+to+us%22+OR+trojan+OR+CHORUS+OR+%22Let+us%22)>" [publishers] to manage a "gradual transition" (certainly not a "flip." which publishers know full well would be highly unstable and impermanent, and would quickly transform into a "flop" because of institutional, funder and national defections) *(4) and, most important, desist from mandating immediate Green OA, which would -- they never cease to bray -- destroy the entireêer-reviewed research journal publication system.* That's about it. It's all bogus, and easily shown to be bogus, but as long as the publishing lobby can make its pitch behind closed doors, with no one to provide the evidence that it's bogus, they can keep retarding progress. But I can't say it enough: If all funders and institutions just go ahead and mandate immediate-deposit (not even necessarily immediate-OA, thanks to the Button) *then there is absolutely nothing publishers and the publishing lobby can do to stop all the dominoes from falling* -- all the way from universal OA to the phasing out of everything except peer review to the conversion to Fair Gold with all the re-use rights the open data people are seeking. And that's not "destroying the entire peer-reviewed research journal publication system" but updating it to what is possible today, but prevented by the publishers' strangle-hold on the obsolete status quo. Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/> . *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog **4/28 * SH > > On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> > wrote: > > The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. > The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription > journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max > Planck Digital Library”. > > > > In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass > “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models. > > > > Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because > holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the > principles of openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003 > Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and > Humanities. > > > > Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and > transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open > access a reality, as well as of research outputs? > > > > Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means > of achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and > secret processes become the norm, with the costs and details of the > transition taking place outside the purview of the wider OA movement? If > that is right, would it matter? > > > > Some thoughts here: > http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html > > > > Richard Poynder > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
