[GOAL] Re: Agreement on Green OA not needed from publishers but from institutions and funders
Thomas Krichel
krichel at openlib.org
Wed Jun 20 16:06:05 BST 2012
Stevan Harnad writes
> And if the institution's users need access to a journal article from
> another institution, today, they should eat cake?
No. They should send an email to the authors and ask for a copy. If
the authors don't respond, then just don't read that papers and
don't cite that paper. There are other papers to read.
> And maybe instead of spending money "building" the institutional
> repository, institutions should mandate filling it?
Mandates are useful but incentives can help too. Just spend some of
the money saved on subscription and faculty travel to conference,
but make that support conditional on papers appearing in the IR.
> Perhaps the subscription cancelling can be saved for when 100% of
> all institutions' articles have been deposited and are accessible to
> all users as Green OA?
No. You have to realise building institutional repository is
expensive. It has to be funded centrally. So where is the money
coming from? To understand this you have to take a broader look at
the rationale for research.
Research in universities is conducted to raise awareness of the
university's work. It is not individually rational for an individual
to purchase access to papers produced by other universities. Such
purchases subsidise attention to research conducted at other
universities. If these other universities want to advertise
themselves, let them do it through their repositories.
Of course it also collectively irrational for the whole university
sector to buy back its output that it has given away for free. That
irrationality is well understood. The individual irrationality of
subscription is less well understood, as Stevan's accusation of
humbug demonstrates.
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
http://authorprofile.org/pkr1
skype: thomaskrichel
More information about the GOAL
mailing list