[GOAL] "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

Thu Dec 31 14:45:42 GMT 2015

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Richard Poynder <ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk
> wrote:

[1|....no official OA organisation was ever created in order to reach
> democratic consensus on a coherent and coordinated set of policies and
> solutions.
>
[2]That is why OA advocates... have spent the last 13 years arguing with
> one another.
>
[3] And that is why governments and research funders are now taking charge
> and coming up with solutions that will likely prove less than optimal.
>
[4] open access should be viewed as a prelude to a much wider reform

1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --  though there are plenty
of confident (and competing) diagnoses. There have been plenty of OA
organizations, but no consensus. If someone knows how an "official
organization" can solve this problem then I can think of some far more
pressing problems -- like poverty, disease, war, racism, cruelty to animals
-- that I'd like to see the solution applied to.

2. OA advocates are a small minority in the scholarly/scientific world. As
to why they disagree, see above.

3. Governments and research funders (and universities) are organizations
too. None of them is universal or omnipotent, hence in a position to "take
charge.". Nor have they reached a consensus. Some of their tentatives (the
UK's Finch Fiasco, the Netherlands Dekker Debacle) have been less promising
than others (the UK's HEFCE/REF Policy, Belgium's FNR Policy) and some are
still uncertain (the US OSTP Policy).

4. Let's settle for universal OA before demanding "much wider reform." (13
years' wait for just OA seems long enough already without insisting on
conquering poverty too...)

Stevan Harnad

> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Velterop
> *Sent:* 31 December 2015 11:29
> *To:* goal at eprints.org
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode
>
>
>
> 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
> <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>
> <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 RoadGuildford, Surrey, GU1 3PWUnited Kingdom+44
> 1483 579525 <%2B44%201483%20579525> (landline)+44 7525 026991
> <%2B44%207525%20026991> (mobile)Noordland 442548 WB Den HaagThe
> Netherlands+31 707611166 <%2B31%20707611166>*
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151231/168b5b98/attachment-0001.html 