[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Unanimity (Re: Monographs)

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Rick Anderson <rick.anderson at utah.edu>wrote:

>  *SH: *there is unanimity among researchers about desiring -- even if not
> daring, except if mandated, to provide -- OA to peer-reviewed journal
> articles
>
> If researchers unanimously desired OA, then there would be an OA mandate
> on every campus… independent and critical thinking... tends to make a good
> researcher….
> <rick.anderson at utah.edu>
>

The reason researchers need OA mandates is very clear and unambiguous: fear
of publishers and their
embargoes<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/categories/16-Publishing-Lobby>
.

That's why the immediate-deposit Liege-model
mandate<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=%22immediate-deposit%22+OR+(Liege+model)+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>is
so crucially important: It is a temporary compromise that gets all
articles immediately deposited and is immune to publisher embargoes.

There will be an OA mandate on every campus (and every funder). It is just
taking them time to sort out which mandate is most effective. The
evidence<http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.8174.pdf>in increasingly pointing
to the Liege-model immediate-deposit mandate.

"Independent and critical thinking" researchers will act according to the
evidence: depend on it. They may be slow, but they are not stupid…

The publisher lobbies and embargoes will fail. They are simply attempts to
delay the optimal and inevitable outcome for research and researchers (so
as to keep milking the cash cow for as long as possible).

Stevan Harnad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131125/07e6554a/attachment.html