[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Velterop]

The mistake is to think of open access as a 'movement' with coherent and 
coordinated policies and providing solutions. It isn't and it won't. 
Individual advocates may propose (partial) solutions, propose 
compromises, propose different interpretations of the idea, et cetera, 
but they are individuals, not 'the OA movement'.

Open access is much more akin to an emerging zeigeist, detected and 
recognised early by some, who deemed it worth while to define, 
propagate, and advocate the idea, which is gradually, albeit slowly, 
finding wider support. Different OA enthusiasts have different ideas as 
to what it is, have different expectations, see different opportunities 
or purposes, even have different definitions. Some see it as a way to 
reduce costs, others as a way to change business model and even increase 
income, yet others as a way to reform the entire publishing system, and 
some even primarily as a way to increase the efficiency and 
effectiveness of scientific communication.

I myself see open access as the prelude to a much needed but much wider 
reform of the way scientific knowledge is recorded, published, 
promulgated and used, even including the way peer review is organised 
and carried out (I favour methods such as this one: 
http://about.scienceopen.com/peer-review-by-endorsement-pre/), in order 
to make the most, world-wide, in society at large and not just in 
academic circles, of the scientific knowledge that is generated and of 
insights that are gained. Open access is the first, necessary, step, but 
by no means the final goal.

"Some may think that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" as John 
Lennon famously sang. I hope I'm not the only one, anyway.

Jan Velterop

On 31/12/2015 08:16, Richard Poynder wrote:
>
> I don’t think it matters whether or not it is a rubbish argument. If 
> that is what politicians believe, or how they want to justify their 
> decisions, then the strength or weakness of the argument is not the 
> key factor. And as            Andrew Odlyzko points out, it may be 
> more a case of protecting jobs than tax receipts. Certainly the UK has 
> talked in terms of supporting the publishing industry, and The 
> Netherlands will (as you say) have that in mind. Both these countries 
> are in the vanguard of pushing for national deals with publishers, and 
> both are seeking to persuade other countries to do the same — as was 
> doubtless what the UK sought to do in 2013 when it had G8 Presidency: 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g8-science-ministers-statement.
>
> That said, this CNI presentation argues that the US and Europe could 
> be moving in different directions with OA: 
> https://www.cni.org/topics/e-journals/is-gold-open-access-sustainable-update-from-the-uc-pay-it-forward-project. 
> But even if that is true today, for how long will they drift apart?
>
> The fact is that the OA movement has spent the last 13 years arguing 
> with itself. During that time it has convinced governments and 
> research funders that OA is desirable. What is has not done is shown 
> how it can be achieved effectively. In such situations, at some point 
> governments inevitably step in and make the decisions. And that is how 
> Dutch Minister Sander Dekker expressed it last year: “[W]hy are we not 
> much farther advanced in open access in 2014? The world has definitely 
> not stood still in the last ten years. How can it be that the 
> scientific world – which has always been a frontrunner in innovation - 
> has made so little progress on this? Why are most scientific journals 
> still hidden away behind paywalls?” 
> https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/toespraken/2014/01/28/open-acess-going-for-gold
>
> In the absence of unity in the OA movement, who better for governments 
> to work with in order to achieve OA than with publishers, either 
> directly, or by instructing national research funders to get on with 
> it (as the UK did with RCUK).
>
> This suggests to me that the OA is set to slip into closed mode, with 
> behind-closed-doors meetings and negotiations. As Andrew points out, 
> “Secret national-level negotiations with commercial entities about 
> pricing are not uncommon.”
>
> Richard Poynder
>
> *From:*goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On 
> Behalf Of *Velterop
> *Sent:* 30 December 2015 16:05
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org>
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode
>
> What a rubbish argument! This can only be true of a small country with 
> a disproportionally massive commercial scholarly publishing sector 
> (that isn't avoiding taxes via some small island tax haven).
>
> The Netherlands? Perhaps Britain? That's it.
>
> Jan Velterop
>
> On 30/12/2015 12:25, Richard Poynder wrote:
>
>     As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles
>     have been progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at
>     an appropriate political level was that the tax-take from
>     commercial publishers was greater than the cost of research
>     libraries.” http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-- 
/C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road
Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3PW
United Kingdom
+44 1483 579525 (landline)
+44 7525 026991 (mobile)

Noordland 44
2548 WB Den Haag
The Netherlands
+31 707611166/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20151231/76460630/attachment-0001.html