[GOAL] Re: OA Ideology vs. OA Pragmatics

Tue May 1 21:17:51 BST 2012

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 be someone up for tenure. These junior
researchers need to know that their personal open-access initiatives will
be valued. Universities must show real commitment on their part. If they
communicate that library subscriptions will disappear in three years,
promotion and tenure committees will be on notice, all faculty will be on
notice that the university is serious about the change.

John C is a researcher who paid gold open access out of his research
grants. The overhead on his grants sponsors his library subscriptions AND
he pays the full freight of gold open access. That is not sustainable.

Three years is plenty long enough for faculty, libraries, and publishers to
adapt to a new reality, and it is short enough for the transition not to
impact junior researchers adversely.

Stevan will say that gold open access is not necessary. And he is right,
but green open access has been moving too slowly and it requires mandates
that will be difficult to enforce in the long term. The quality of
institutional repositories is sufficient for access to research, but it is
not at the level necessary for long-term archiving. For institutions
participating in green open access, all the costs of open access are
additive to subscription costs. If IRs are the answer, their quality have
to improve and that means more resources are required.

I don't know what the end result will be. No one can plan a disruptive
change. However, I have come to the view that site licenses cause the
stasis. Phasing out of paid subscriptions is the disruption that will set
everything else in motion. Then, let faculty, students, publishers,
libraries, and startups figure it out. The money saved on subscriptions can
help smooth the transitory effects and can be invested in open access.

--Eric.

http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com

Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
Telephone:      (626) 376-5415
Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com

On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:

> Eric,
>
> Why the second sentence? As long as they require OA, do we care how they
> spend – or waste – 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 May 2012, at 19:16, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:
>
> 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 1st, 2015 and invest
> in OA initiatives instead."
>
> --Eric.
>
> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
>
> Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
> Telephone:      (626) 376-5415
> Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
> E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 prescriptions for the means helps keep the focus on the goal and
>>> also leaves the door open for imaginative ways of convincing researchers,
>>> funders and institutions, and even of achieving more OA in possibly more
>>> effective ways.
>>>
>>> I support this.  A simple sentence powerful and this probably has what
>> we want - like all sentences this may need slight crafting.
>>
>> The reality of the present situation is that we seem to need a mix of
>> strategies. What works for one discipline may not work for another. Things
>> have changed over the last 10 years and we need to look for changing
>> methods, changing finances and changing allies.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120501/9ca11129/attachment.html 