[GOAL] Re: [BOAI10] Re: Elsevier's query re: "positive things from publishers that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized"

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

If universities find it difficult to cooperate, it is because, like
researchers themselves, they are caught in increasingly intense
competition systems. The recent and silly world-rankings of universities
are a symptom of this situation.

Before accusing academics and universities, one should examine the kind
of system in which they are caught. The quest for "excellence" which is
found all over the place really amounts to generalized competition. It
also amounts to managing quality through competition. The problem with
this management strategy is that it works only for the very top. My
favourite example is the US health system. It is intensely competitive
at all levels, technical as well as economic, and it does lead to some
of the very best centres of medicine in the world. The global result,
however, is that the US ranks very low in the world when it comes to
something as simple as life expectancy (beyond 30th, if I recall
correctly). Competition favours those who organize it, those at the top,
and it increases inequalities. Does global science work better if
inequalities in working conditions increase?

Publishers find it very convenient to build, maintain and intensify a
competitive game based on a two-tier system separating core science from
the rest. Core science, in turn, is the key to building inelastic
markets around journal titles. Once this is in place, from a publisher's
perspective, Bob's your uncle!

Big deals constitute a brilliant twist on this strategy since they allow
to maintain the core science system with its inelastic markets in place,
*and* sell some of the rest as well. Bob's your uncle's uncle!

We have to revert to a science system based on a continuous graduation,
and not to a two-tier system. We have to create new forms of
intellectual value beyond journal title prestige (especially when the
latter is evaluated through impact factors). We have to restore the
importance of quality, defined as the ability to meet clear and
transparent benchmarks, and locate competition at the very top of
quality, rather than everywhere. Open Access is the best vision to
achieve all of this.

In conclusion, the progress of science is undoubtedly due to giants, but
the foundations of science are armies of very useful midgets. Actually,
the formula "building on the shoulders of giants" runs backward: a few
giants, occasionally, manage to assemble, synthesize, conceptualize,
interpret and invent on the shoulders of myriads of midgets. Without the
armies of midgets, the giants would rarely, if ever, occur. With a
two-tier system of scientific dissemination, the giants can benefit only
from a fraction of the available midgets and science, as a result, does
not grow as efficiently as it could if we could really pool the
distributed intellectual power of humanity.


Jean-Claude Guédon

-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le mardi 15 mai 2012 à 21:09 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit :

> 
> 
> On 15 May 2012, at 19:57, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Universities will never collaborate (third law)
> 
> 
> 
> So there you have it, the Third Law of Acadynamics. Anybody surprised
> that private enterprise has stepped into the breach?
> 
> 
> Another reason why I think that gold CC-BY will win out. PLoS-like,
> eLife-like, BMC-like, PeerJ-like outfits will prevail, and deliver,
> with the help of funding bodies, what the scientific community needs.
> 
> 
> 
> A bit of historical information: the BigDeal, as started in the UK,
> was originally conceived as a nation-wide deal, top-sliced, with every
> university and every institution having access to everything that was
> published. It worked like that for 4 years in the UK, in partnership
> with HEFCE and covering the material that Academic Press published,
> and then it fell apart, because universities didn't like the
> top-slicing, in spite of the fact that a national deal came out
> cheaper in the aggregate, was easier to contain in terms of price
> increases (negotiating clout), gave access to every scholar and
> student, could easily evolve into nation-wide access for which no
> institutional affiliation was needed at all, and could be rolled out
> to encompass the material of other publishers.  However, it was
> thwarted by the Third Law of Acadynamics. With all the consequences we
> have to live with now.
> 
> 
> The fight for OA is not really one against publishers at all; it is
> chiefly one against academic inertia. Open access will write libraries
> out of the equation (what's the point of 'library collections' in an
> OA web world?), and also institutions. It will be funders who
> will make OA reality. Funders private and public, who finance the
> whole scientific enterprise and who realise that OA publishing is part
> and parcel of doing science itself and therefore of the cost of
> science.
> 
> 
> At that point universities don't need to collaborate any longer, and
> the Third Law of Acadynamics will have lost validity in matters
> relating to scientific literature.
> 
> 
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120516/46369b90/attachment.html