Whenever I talk to university administrators, heads of school, individual
researchers, or other library staff about Open Access I have to be strategic
about it. I have to predict which of the many arguments in favour of Open
Access will resonate most directly with the specific audience.
I completely agree with my old comrade-at-arms Eric van de Velde
(below) that one, short, simple, doable message is needed.
BOAI 10, Enabling Open Scholarship and the SPARC
OA Policy group are each working on providing such
a message. (BOAI's will be released shortly by Peter Suber).
The
I would simplify it further:
Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress,
funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to their
published research results.
Any form of dirigisme as to how this is to be achieved is best avoided.
Avoiding
take another 15 years.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120501/776d73a6/attachment-0001.html
attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120501/5733408f/attachment.html
A perspective spanning 20 years on this topic that fails to mention
repositories hardly begins to tackle the issues or the problems.
If we go back 20 years to 1992 we had arXiv, a repository, but barely any
e-journals (although most e-journals then were free).
Some journals that followed were
, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120501/55c1298f/attachment.html
, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120501/85aa7fd0/attachment
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120501/115c208c/attachment.html
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120501/9ca11129/attachment.html
Let's be honest with ourselves, because OA will not come
through fantasy or wishful thinking:
It is undeniable that OA is desirable, beneficial, inspires
a lot of enthusiasm (even in those who don't do a thing about
it, which is most people, including most researchers) and is
probably
Stevan Harnad says The idea is to find reasons why those researchers should
provide
OA (80% of them are not doing it) and why their institutions and
funders should mandate that they do it.
Note the use of reason as a plural, not singular noun. There is no one reason
to rule them all.
from my blog:Â http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1058
20 years of cowardice: the pathetic response of American universities to the
crisis in scholarly publishing
By Michael Eisen | May 1, 2012
When Harvard University says it can not afford something,
I agree that universities should take control of their own scholarly content.
Mike, Where does your article say this? How are you proposing they do this?
Perhaps this was not an angle you wanted to cover in this article, but hard to
ignore in a 20 year view.
Repositories were not attempting
How about the following:
Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress, funders
and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to their published
research results. Institutions and their libraries will phase out all electronic
journal subscriptions by May
I did mention it briefly, saying Their inaction also cost them the chance to
reclaim the primary role they once held (through their university presses) in
communicating the output of their scholars.
But, look, not every thing anyone writes about scholarly publishing can touch on
every aspect of
Eric,
Why the second sentence? As long as they require OA, do we care how they spend
â
or waste â their money? (Except as tax payers, perhaps, but the access issue
isn't the financial issue. Conflation of the two has stymied progress in my
view. Just as dirigiste solutions have.)
Jan
On 1
Jan:
I thought for a long time that conflating the two was wrong, but I have changed
my view on that. On Michael Eisen's blog, two comments, one by John C and one by
JJ, illustrate the point.
Let's start with JJ, a grad student looking for a postdoc or assistant prof
position, but it could also
Let's be honest with ourselves, because OA will not come
through fantasy or wishful thinking:
It is undeniable that OA is desirable, beneficial, inspires
a lot of enthusiasm (even in those who don't do a thing about
it, which is most people, including most researchers) and is
probably
19 matches
Mail list logo
