[GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

Tue May 1 17:04:24 BST 2012

Thank you David for your answer. You wrote :
"We have a list of benefits of OA - we should tailor the list depending on 
which of the benefits is most effective at any particular moment with 
whatever the particular audience is that we find ourselves in front of."

It is exactly what I wanted to answer.
Just to give some examples: I have tried to convince  a lot of different 
people of the benefit of OA, during these past 12 years and of course, my 
arguments were very different when I was preparing 10 PPT (no more allowed ) 
for the head of my research institute INRA,  when I was speaking to French 
students during 2 hours, or when I was giving a conference at the Dakar 
University, in Senegal.
You can easily imagine that the perception of the benefits of OA are 
different in these 3 cases. I have been very happy to have a list and to 
select the most appropriate arguments.

Hélène Bosc
Open Access to Scientific Communication
http://open-access.infodocs.eu/tiki-index.php

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk>
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:08 PM
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access

>> 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.
>
> Brava!  The whole point in a nutshell.  We have a list of benefits of OA - 
> we should tailor the list depending on which of the benefits is most 
> effective at any particular moment with whatever the particular audience 
> is that we find ourselves in front of.  If I can find an ally then I will 
> take their support - even if they have been convinced by only the 
> officially sanctioned third highest OA priority.
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> On 1 May 2012, at 00:01, Vanessa Barrett wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 have learnt a lot from Stevan Harnad's tireless work in promoting Open 
>> Access.  His presentation on "Mandates and Metrics: How Open Repositories 
>> Enable Universities to Manage, Measure and Maximise their Research 
>> Assets" http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265693/ is a powerful tool in building 
>> persuasive cases for OA, but it contains 100 slides and there are few 
>> occasions where I have the luxury of having that much time to present the 
>> case for OA.
>>
>> Instead I need to be prepared to focus in on one or two arguments that 
>> will gain most traction with the audience I have.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Vanessa Barrett
>> Digital Services Librarian
>> The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005
>> Ph    : +61 8 8313 4625
>> e-mail: vanessa.barrett at adelaide.edu.au
>>
>> CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
>> ----------------------------------------------------------- 
>> This email message is intended only for the addressee(s)
>> and contains information which may be confidential and/or
>> copyright.  If you are not the intended recipient please
>> do not read, save, forward, disclose, or copy the contents
>> of this email. If this email has been sent to you in error,
>> please notify the sender by reply email and delete this
>> email and any copies or links to this email completely and
>> immediately from your system.  No representation is made
>> that this email is free of viruses.  Virus scanning is
>> recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
>> Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 12:24 AM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access
>>
>> On 2012-04-30, at 7:16 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>>
>>> The idea that there is a set of "researchers" in Universities who
>>> deserve special consideration and for whom public funds must
>>> be spent is offensive.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Peer access is a credible, practical reason, pertains to all
>> research and researchers, and is based on their own self-interest.
>>
>> Public access is worthy, desirable, and automatically comes along
>> with OA, but on its own it is not a credible, practical reason,
>> pertaining to all research and researchers, and based on their
>> own self-interest.
>>
>> That is the practical, strategic reason why peer access needs to be
>> primary and public access secondary, in promoting rationales
>> for providing and mandating OA.
>>
>>> I fall directly into SH's category of "the general public",
>>
>> Not at all. PM-R is a researcher, whether retired or not.
>> He falls squarely in the category of peer access rather
>> than public access.
>>
>>> I am a supporter of publicly funded Gold OA and of domain repositories.
>>> I am not prepared for these to be dismissed ex cathedra.
>>
>> Eighty percent of researchers are not providing OA. That's why OA
>> mandates are needed, from researchers' institutions and funders.
>>
>> Gold OA publishing cannot be mandated, only Green OA self-archiving
>> can be.
>>
>> Only some research is funded, but all research comes from institutions.
>> Hence funder mandates and institutional mandates need to  be
>> convergent and mutually reinforcing rather than divergent and 
>> competitive:
>>
>> The locus of mandatory deposit should be institutional: domain 
>> repositories
>> can then harvest the data or metadata.
>>
>> None of this is ideological or ex cathedra. These are considerations
>> of direct practical strategy, to get us out of the 20% OA where we have 
>> been
>> stalled for a decade, to 100% OA. through institutional and funder 
>> mandates.
>>
>>> I have personally not many scientists who are highly committed to Green 
>>> OA
>>
>> Quite. Only about 20% of researchers provide OA unmandated (about 2/3 of
>> that via Green OA self-archiving and 1/3 via Gold OA publishing).
>>
>> That's why the mandates are needed from institutions and funders.
>>
>> Ideology and exhortations alone will not do the trick,
>>
>>> There is an increasing amount of scholarship taking place outside 
>>> Universities
>>> and without the public purse.
>>
>> Does it result in peer-reviewed publications? Then it falls under the 
>> strategic
>> discussion about priorities that is underway here. Otherwise not.
>>
>>> Wikipedia is, perhaps, the best example of this and could - if minds 
>>> were open -
>>> act as an interesting approach to respositories.
>>
>> Wikipedia is unrefereed and explicitly excludes primary research.
>>
>> What needs to be open is access to refereed, published research -- and
>> it is evident that for 80% of that, effective mandates will be needed.
>>
>>> It's notable that uptake of publication-related tools such as WP, 
>>> Figshare, Dryad,
>>> Mendeley, etc. is high, because people actually want them. I would like 
>>> to see
>>> effort on information-saving and sharing tools that people need and 
>>> community
>>> repositories.
>>
>> There is so far no evidence at all that OA is being provided by 
>> researchers,
>> via these tools, unmandated, at a rate any higher than the unmandated
>> OA baseline (20%).
>>
>> So we are still left with the practical, strategic challenge of getting 
>> OA mandated
>> and hence provided.
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 