[GOAL] Scope of the GOAL list and discussions on "open access"

[Peter Murray-Rust]

I have just joined the GOAL list and would ike to make some suggestions
about scope. I hope these can be taken in a spirit of neutrality and
web-democracy.

First I should thank Stevan Harnad for his pioneering work in Open Access -
he and I agree on much but by no means everything. I have likened some
F/OSS projects to the succession model of Doctor Who (a long-standing
British sci-fi cult TV series where every few years the Doctor "dies" and
the regenerates in a different body). See
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1326254/the-doctor-who-model-of-open-source.
So for me this is a natural and valuable regeneration.

I have had several close interactions with RichardP. We have each
intereviewed each other - Richard speaks in:
http://www-pmr.ch.cam.ac.uk/wiki/Panton_Discussions_2010 and
http://sms.cam.ac.uk/collection/1094046 (audio). I believe he has an
objective view of "Open Access" and also a keen desire to see it prosper.
The interviews he conducts are extremely penetrating and comprehensive.

I believe we need a new type of open discussion in Open Access. I may upset
some people in this posting but I have to say that I feel like an outsider
in the Open Access movement and I know several other people who feel the
same. We have no place where we can discuss Open Access matters in an
objective manner - the current lists are either slanted towards a political
agenda inappropriate to our views and requirements or represent communities
to which most of us do not belong.

What has therefore happened is a number of uncoordinated postings on blogs
(including mine http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr)  where we attempt to collect
factual information in a responsible way or to discuss issues in an an
objective manner. There are huge amounts of resources going into Open
Access (Institutional Respositories, Open Access Author Publication Charges
(APC) and funded projects, organisations and resources - I estimate this at
hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Yet  there is no central resource
for the world. There is no body which represents the "Open Access"
community in negotiations with publishers on, say, licences or author
charges (which are among the issues I wish to discuss).

As a result discussions have been uncoordinated, negotiating power with
publishers has been (at least to my eyes) non-existent.

I would like to discuss some of these issues which I believe are mainstream
for "open access". I would like, at least, for me (and others) to have
their voice heard, and to be given a reasonable hearing and to get factual
or agreed answers to their concerns.

So, before raising my concerns in detail, I would like to know whether this
list is the appropriate place or, whether as some of my correspondents have
suggested, we should set up our own list.

P.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20111228/823c0e50/attachment.html