<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19088">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>3 Cheers for the Titanium Road.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>My publishing company will <EM>mandate from the
journal side </EM>the authors to make Green OA deposits for greater
availabiility, exposure to the journal name, for preservation (<EM>copies,
copies, copies).</EM> <EM><BR></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><EM>Open access materials such as online journals
and scholarly websites are particularly at risk of<BR>disappearing. (<A
href="http://eprints.rclis.org/bitstream/10760/14538/1/Jottkandt_Preservation_of_OA_Journals_review.pdf">Jootkandt</A>
)</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Green OA repositories are not gauranteed against
failure either, and therefore hard copy/journal copy/archive copy/preservation
archive copy would be best, IMHO. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>There are 2 risks to the literary legacy of the
Northern baby boom who grew up in the big science period. The first is
that scientific development of that era will be buried under copyright until
2100. The second is that the literature will not be read
or preserved, because vast majority is 3rd party transferred copyright to
conglomerate private publishers whose economic outlook is now threatened by OA,
these companies are potential ghosts unless they convert to OA. A
post-industrial society may well forget where it came from. This may haunt
us. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>How will we liberate and preserve that literature,
I wonder? I am interested in the entire corpus from 1665 being available, a
global Alexandria. Converted OA publishers should backdate their OA, and
authors can use Titanium OA to release their own older papers to
archives. That would be most helpful</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Arif Jinha </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>- OA that is Green, Gold, Red (print production
sales - CC license) and Black (no author-fee)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>JBC Wakefield - a 2012 company</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=amsciforum@gmail.com href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">Stevan
Harnad</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=goal@eprints.org
href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">Global Open Access List (Successor of
AmSci)</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 20, 2011 1:01
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Titanium Killer Apps and
OA</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Arthur Sale <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:ahjs@ozemail.com.au">ahjs@ozemail.com.au</A>></SPAN> wrote:
<DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>I really don’t understand how Stevan manages to call the
Titanium Road “a technologically supercharged version of the Green Road”,
but Stevan can explain that statement if he
wishes.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Gold Road to OA means the author publishes the paper in an OA journal
and <I>the journal makes the paper accessible free for all online.</I></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The Green Road to OA means the author publishes the paper in any
journal and, in addition, <I>the author makes the paper accessible free for
all online</I> ("author self-archiving").</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The "Titanium Road" to OA consists of new user tools with which the
author can make the article accessible free for all online ("author
self-archiving").</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hence the "Titanium Road" is merely a technologically enhanced version of
the Green Road ("author self-archiving").</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>There are only two roads to OA (free online access): The journal does it
or the author does it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U> The more important issue is that I have
failed to get across to him that the Titanium Road has nothing to do with
researcher voluntarism.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Volunteerism means that <I>in order to make their papers OA, researchers
have to do something that they are not currently doing</I>, of their own
accord, not because of an institutional or funder requirement.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Using new tools, voluntarily, is volunteerism.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>The Gold Road does, because unless the researcher is
funded by the Wellcome Trust or its like, he or she is likely to have to
volunteer to divert money from his or her research grant to pay the
author-side fees. </P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>You've missed the much more fundamental volunteer step in publishing in a
Gold OA journal, Arthur: </DIV>
<DIV><I><BR></I></DIV>
<DIV><I>Choosing to publish in a Gold OA journal rather than in a non-OA
journal.</I></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>The Green Road also does, because the researcher has to
volunteer to undertake unnatural extra work to deposit works in the
institutional repository through a clunky
interface.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The volunteer step in Green OA self-archiving is: Choosing to
self-archive.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The "clunkiness" of the interface is a technological matter. Not everyone
would agree that filling out a few obvious form-interface fields (login,
password, author, title, journal, date, etc.) is so "clunky" or "unnatural" in
a day when we are filling out online forms all the time. It's just a few
minutes' worth of keystrokes.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But my friend Arthur is profoundly mistaken if he thinks that the reason
why over 80% of researchers are <I>not</I> voluntarily self-archiving today is
because they find it too "clunky" to do the keystrokes.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I wish it were that simple. But in fact there are at least 38 reasons
researchers why do not voluntarily self-archive -- <A
href="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries">http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries</A>
-- and their worry that doing so might be "clunky" is just one of them (and
usually based on never even having tried it out).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>(But I do think that it is his implicit assumption that the real
deterrent to OA is having to do too many keystrokes that makes Arthur think
that a new technology has come along (the "Titanium Road") that authors will
find so effortless, attractive and beneficial, that they will (voluntarily)
take to it, do all their keystrokes in a new way, for a new purpose, and one
of the side-effects will be that their papers will have become effectively OA
(i.e., accessible online, free for all).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This is what is called a <I>hypothesis</I>. And I certainly wish that
Arthur's hypothesis were to prove true -- that the natural advantages of the
Titanium Technology prove to attract all researchers in all disciplines
worldwide of their own accord so quickly that it closes the persistent 80% OA
gap as fast as Green OA mandates would have done, and that it does so faster
than it will take to persuade the world's funders and institutions to adopt
Green OA mandates.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But for my own part, across the last 2 long decades, I have already lived
through far too many high hopes for yet another OA "Killer App" that will
"tip" us to 100% OA in short order (FTP, the web, Arxiv, OAI, EPrints, IRs,
SWORD, etc. etc.). I think it would be a mistake to wait for uptake of this
latest App (Mendeley, etc.), and a mistake to yet again divert OA advocacy
time and effort toward promoting the use and benefits of the Titanium
Technology instead of devoting the lion's share of OA advocacy efforts to
promoting Green OA mandates.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>They even hate to deposit a version of the article that
they have no confidence in (the Accepted
Manuscript).</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Arthur: Over 80% of researchers hate to deposit <I>any version at
all</I>, and don't! Worries about versions are just one of the at-least 38
reasons researchers don't deposit, year upon year upon year.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>And the point is that all 38+ reasons are groundless. But it is now
evident that it is hopeless to try to persuade researchers of this, one by
one, researcher by researcher, reason by reason, year upon year upon
year.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>That's why deposit has to be mandated. (That way, only researchers'
funders and institutions need to be persuaded!)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>So few of them do it, and they backslide so easily, that
the only solution is to force them to do it (a mandate). Since mandates rely
on persuasion of key executives who are themselves usually ex-researchers
and are transitory, voluntarism is an intrinsic thread running through the
Green Road.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>You are quite right that persuading the key executives of research
institutions and funders to adopt an OA self-archiving mandate is a
substantial challenge. But I think time has shown that it is the challenge
that can yield the greatest OA dividends, the fastest, and that it hence
deserves far more time and effort now than pinning our hopes yet again on
trying to promote the adoption of a new killer-app by researchers. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The volunteerism in question here, by the way, is <I>the volunteer
stroking of keys by researchers</I>. Of course all human decisions, including
institutional executive ones, are "free-willed" decisions. But casting that as
just another variant of the OA voluntarism problem misses the fact that <I>it
is individual researcher voluntarism that is failing</I>, and that persuading
key executives to (voluntarily!) mandate researcher keystrokes is not quite
the same thing.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Wendy Hall (Southampton), Tom Cochrane (QUT) and Bernard Rentier (Liege),
after all, are "key executives", and they have chosen, of their own free will,
to mandate the OA self-archiving (keystrokes). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>One of the key objectives of EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS) -- of which
Bernard Rentier is Director (and Tom Cochrane is a Board member) -- is to
advise their fellow key executives at other institutions worldwide on how to
mandate the keystrokes that are the only thing that stands between us and 100%
OA.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U> I liken the Titanium Road with the situation
with Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETDs). Where universities mandate
the deposit of an electronic copy of the thesis, the deposit rate easily
reaches completeness (and I mean 100%, not the 80% or so ID/OA mandated
articles sometimes achieve). It never retreats from that. Why? Because the
action required of the graduating student is completely natural and they’ve
always expected to do it. The university simply says “instead of depositing
two bound copies of your thesis with the university before graduating, give
us one and an electronic copy”. Or in even more enlightened universities
“just give us an electronic copy”. The student does what is asked, and is
even happy that copying the files to a CD or DVD is much, much easier than
waiting for 100s of pages to print, finding a binder who can do black card
covers and gold lettering, and paying for all of it. The success of ETD
schemes is that they are natural, and simply electronicize a function that
is already part of a PhD student’s activity.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This is alas where theorizing gets in our way: </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The reason students deposit theses as mandated is <I>because deposit is
mandated</I>. Volunteer deposit means unmandated deposit. </DIV>
<DIV>And the reason most researchers don't deposit is because <I>deposit is
mandated by fewer than 200 institutions</I>, out of at least 10,000 worldwide!
(see <A href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/">ROARMAP</A>). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Moreover, many of those first 200 mandates are <A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html">wishy-washy
ones</A>, without a clear indication of what to do and how, and without any
mechanism for monitoring compliance.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Not so with Tom Cochrane's or Bernard Rentier's ID/OA mandates at QUT and
U Liege. And the Liege mandate model, the most effective one of all,
<I>designates deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for
institutional performance assessment</I>: “instead of mailing paper
copies or emailing digital copies of your publications to the university for
performance assessment, deposit one electronic copy in the institutional
repository”. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>You, Arthur, are attributing the success to the fact that depositing is
"natural." </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But the real reason for the success is that it is mandatory (in both
cases).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The Titanium Technology may prove quite natural to use, but to get
everyone to use it, you would have to mandate it. That's certainly not in the
cards. But mandating deposit is.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U> So to the Titanium Road, which is directly
aimed at existing researcher practice and psychology. Every researcher worth
a cent keeps a record of all their publications (and sometimes their
unpublished works too). </P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Are you sure?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But let's suppose that's so. Now let's go on:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Being a person who grew up with computers but still in
the Gutenberg era, I still have an archive box under the house with paper
copies of all my early publications, going back to my 1969 PhD thesis and
several earlier publications. A list of all the publications also exists in
my curriculum vitae (cv), and I keep both up to date. Did any serious
researcher do differently then? </P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I expect that most researchers maintain and update online CVs.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>So far so good. Let's go on: </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>But the times are changing. While I may have produced one
of the world’s early word-processed PhD theses (I wrote the word processing
software myself too, and took over the university’s mainframe to run it off
on the console IBM typewriter in night-time hours), I did not keep a
‘machine-readable copy’ (it was in several boxes of 80-column punched
cards). Nowadays that is exactly what I do. I rely on electronic apps to
keep my recent records.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Few were as advanced as you then, and chances are that not many are as
advanced as you now either; but let's suppose it is so. Let's suppose that
researchers now retain digital versions of both their CVs and the papers they
publish.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Nevertheless, 80% of them are not doing the keystrokes to deposit these
digital documents in their institutional repositories unless it is
mandated. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>So what next?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U> The Titanium Road is predicated on
researchers doing just this: keeping the records of their publications (full
text and citations) online and in the cloud. </P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>What percentage of them do you think are doing this now? What percent
will be doing it next year, in 10 years? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><I>Those are the numbers to beat</I>, if you think this is better, surer
and faster to reach 100% OA than mandating deposit.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>The only tiny missing step is access to this huge
resource, probably rapidly heading for 100% data
coverage.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>That's like saying there's only one tiny missing step missing in my
perpetual-motion machine!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The problem has been to get authors to make their papers accessible free
for all online -- not to get them to write them, or to write them digitally,
or to store them digitally. They're mostly doing that already,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Now I agree that <I>if all else were indeed in place</I> so that making
papers accessible free for all online really only cost the author <I>one
single keystroke</I>, it would be considerably easier to persuade them to do
that one single keystroke (despite the 38 groundless worries that have been
holding them back till now).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But all else certainly isn't in place (in the "cloud"). And your
hypothesis amounts to the hope that it will be in place -- more quickly and
surely than mandating it -- because researchers will adopt the Titanium
Killer-App of their own accord faster than institutions and funders can be
persuaded to mandate deposit!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>(Yes, we do indeed disagree, profoundly, on that empirical prediction --
which doesn't mean that I am against Killer-Apps, Titanic or otherwise. Just
that I'm against waiting for them on the hope that they will be spontaneously
adopted globally fast enough to do the trick. And I'm even more against again
slacking in efforts to promote deposit mandates in favor of promoting new
Killer-Apps.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Emails to the author asking for access are an ‘almost OA’
option, just like the ID/OA Green Road, </P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Emailing the author for an eprint is <I>not</I> what is meant
by "Almost-OA". To email the author for an eprint you first need to find
there's a paper, find the author's email address, and email the author to send
an eprint. That's a lot of keystrokes, and a lot of time, for both the
requester and the author.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>For "Almost-OA" (as defined in our joint paper!) the eprint must first be
deposited in the author's institutional repository (in <I>Closed</I> not Open
Access, otherwise it would be OA, not "Almost-OA") and then the repository's
automated "email eprint request" Button can be used by the requester to
trigger an automated eprint request to the author (all of this requiring just
the cut/paste of the requester's own email address plus one keystroke from the
requester to request and one keystroke from the author to fulfill).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2012) Open
Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing:
Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler,
Eds.) <A
href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/">http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But that's all on the premise that the paper has been deposited! For 80%
of papers it has not.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>but increasingly I predict we will see a researcher’s
personal corpus of work opened to the Internet. That’s OA!
</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It is indeed. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Except that it's not happening: </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><I>How many researchers are actually doing this now, worldwide, and how
quickly is it growing? </I></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Of course computer scientists have long done this on
their own websites, but computer scientists are able to write html code and
use web tools, whereas most researchers can’t or won’t waste the time to
learn.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Indeed computer scientists have been doing it -- ever since they invented
Unix, UUCP and the Net in the '80s, with anonymous FTP. And indeed computer
scientists can and do do a lot more.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But have you not noticed that neither computer scientists' self-archiving
practices since the '80s nor physicists' self-archiving practices since the
'90s have generalized to other disciplines in the 20-30 years that they have
been available in principle?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>That's why we need the mandates!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>The new generation of apps such as Mendeley that collect
data make this as easy as creating a Facebook page, and as I said, it is
simply electronicizing what they already do, better, simpler, and cheaper.
</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>And now, Arthur, it's time for you to do the stats and provide the data
to support your hypothesis and its predictions: <I>How quickly are these apps
being taken up for the purposes you describe, overall, and discipline by
discipline, year by year?</I></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>To make your data comparable with the growth data for Gold OA, unmandated
Green OA and mandated Green OA, it will need to be calculated as the
percentage of yearly peer-reviewed paper output made freely accessible online
by the new means you describe, for each discipline, and overall.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It is not logically possible that there are some remarkable growth curves
for Titanium OA burgeoning as we speak -- but I hope you agree that this is an
empirical question, requiring some supporting evidence, before we are
persuaded to divert efforts to promote Green OA mandates that have been shown
to work fast, toward promoting the use of applications that have
not. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>There is no ‘volunteering’, Stevan. The researchers just
keep on doing what they’ve always done, but optimize it a bit by using
better tools that become available.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The tool use and optimizing is voluntary, not mandatory. So the empirical
question that has to be asked and answered remains:<I> What is the evidence
that this "optimizing" is actually generating OA, and what do the growth
curves look like (compared to the current alternatives).</I></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>I remain optimistic. Unfortunately I cannot point to big
major gains to match where the Gold Road and the Green Road have reached,
but then you know me also as a person with sensitive antennae for small
signals of scholarly revolutions... It is early days
yet.</P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>No, Arthur, it's not early days. It's extremely <I>late</I> days, insofar
as OA is concerned. This is not the time to keep waiting, yet again, to see
how well some new piece of technology will do in generating OA. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It is the time to promote, use and apply the one tested measure that we
know works, rapidly and surely, if only it is adopted. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>And that measure is to mandate Green OA self-archiving.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Stevan Harnad</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word" lang=EN-AU vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d"><U></U></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<P class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"
lang=EN-US>From:</SPAN></B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" lang=EN-US> <A
href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"
target=_blank>goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> [mailto:<A
href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"
target=_blank>goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Stevan
Harnad<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 19 December 2011 1:10 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Global
Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: Bold
predictions for 2012<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal>My friend and comrade-at-arms, the Archivangelist of the
Antipodes, Arthur Sale, finds that Gold OA publishing is growing too slowly.
(He's right.)<U></U><U></U></P>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Arthur also finds that both Green OA self-archiving, and
Green OA self-archiving mandates (ID/OA) are growing too slowly. (He's
right.)<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Arthur predicts that more and more researchers will
spontaneously begin to use enhanced, interoperable, interactive electronic
resources (much the way they now already use word-processing, email and the
web instead of typing and paper) so that the writing, storing and
record-keeping of their own articles, and exchanging them with one another,
will become so rich and interdigitated and natural that it will be
functionally equivalent to having deposited them in an institutional OA
repository, free for all.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>He calls this the "Titanium Road" to OA (though it sounds
rather like a technologically supercharged version of the Green Road to
me!).<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>And surely he is right that something along those lines is
as optimal and inevitable as OA itself.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>The question is: Will its use grow any faster, of its own
accord, than Gold or Green OA have done?<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Arthur's betting that it will -- and I of course wish he
were right!<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>But after 20 years, I have given up completely on
researcher voluntarism, even when it is overwhelmingly in their own best
interests. <U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>It was voluntarism that I assumed would bring us universal
OA "virtually overnight" way back in 1994.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Technology has been doing nothing but making it easier and
easier, and more and more rewarding, for researchers to provide OA, year upon
year, ever since.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Yet the ever simpler and more powerful technology has never
succeeded in inducing researchers -- or, rather, has not induced anywhere near
enough researchers (for it has always induced some of them) -- to make their
work OA in anywhere near sufficient numbers to reach that fabled OA "tipping
point" that everyone keeps talking about year upon
year.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>So I will make no predictions for 2012, except to say that
if it's a pipe-dream that voluntarism will ever kick in among researchers of
its own accord, there is still the hope that their funders and institutions
will come to their senses and make OA compulsory, by mandating it, as a
condition for being employed and paid to conduct and report research in the
online era -- which ought long ago to have become the OA
era.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>It is now a matter of tried, tested and demonstrated
empirical -- and hence historical -- fact that OA mandates, if adopted,
*do* accelerate the growth of OA for the research output of the funder or
institution that mandated it -- soon approaching 100%, when it's the optimal
mandate (ID/OA, Liege model, as the sole mechanism of submission for research
performance assessment).<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>So the open empirical question now is whether adopting OA
mandates will succeed in kicking in among researchers' funders and
institutions in sufficient numbers -- in the way that providing OA
spontaneously <I>failed</I> to do among researchers
themselves.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Fortunately, the number of funders and institutions
worldwide that need to be convinced of the benefits of mandating OA is an
order of magnitude smaller than the number of researchers that need to provide
OA.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>And a number of sizeable mandating initiatives among
funders at the national level have already successfully led to mandate
adoption (notably among all the major national funders in the UK, and some at
the EU level: see ROAMAP), with the biggest of all (COMPETES) now under
deliberation in the US.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>And at the global institutional level, there is now Bernard
Rentier's and Alma Swan's EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS), established to help
guide the universal providers of research, funded and unfunded, in all
disciplines -- namely, universities and research institutions -- in
designing OA policies worldwide.<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>So whereas there is no basis for crowing about "tipping
points," there is reason to hope that we may not have to keep waiting for
technology to put us over the top spontaneously via Arthur's "Titanium Road"
-- though technology's help in providing OA and enhancing its benefits is
always welcome (and being actively incorporated into the EPrints and DSpace
repository software as well as into the implementation of OA mandates almost
as fast as it is developed).<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Stevan Harnad<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>Superannuated Archivangelist<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal>On 2011-12-18, at 4:12 PM, Arthur Sale
wrote:<U></U><U></U></P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR><BR><U></U><U></U></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Richard, you
asked what we’d like to see in 2012.<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">I’d like to see
more open access journals, and higher prestige attached to those that already
exist. Who wouldn’t? I’d also like to see more ID/OA mandated
institutional repositories. Again who wouldn’t? But I don’t see either
strategy as taking Open Access to the tipping point where a scholarly
revolution becomes unstoppable. Why? Because both strategies are too cerebral,
too argumentative, too technological, and they require at present unnatural
actions on the part of researchers.<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">What I want to
predict is a growing number of researchers doing completely natural things
that have always been in their repertoire of work, for example like keeping a
lifetime record of their publications and ephemera. It used to be a collection
of paper, but the social media tools like Mendeley now allow this to be
electronic, and like the silent transition from typewriters to the admittedly
superior word processing software, I predict we will see a silent transition
to online in-the-cloud corpus collections. Making this open access is
technologically trivial, and I have named this
the<SPAN> </SPAN><I>Titanium Road to open access</I>: light-weight,
strong, robust and recognises what people actually
do.<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">If I can make
another prediction, I think that 2012 might just be the year that we begin to
question the copyright position of articles. Despite legal transfer of
copyright (sometimes) most publishers pay only lip-service to their
‘ownership’ and carry out minimal due diligence in their ‘purchase’ in return
for services, and researchers respond with total indifference by dispensing
copies of the Version-of-Record as they see fit. Never a week goes by when I
do not see someone post to a list “Can anyone send me a copy of Xxx by Yyy in
journal Zzz?” and it appears they almost always are satisfied by their later
posts of effusive thanks. The law in respect of scholarly articles has to
change, and this might be the year that we begin to see cracks open
up.<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Finally, let me
make my last prediction – that 2012 might see us begin to address the issue of
China, and the language barriers that look like being a major part of the OA
spectrum in this decade (2011-2020). The English-speaking world and the
European language speaking world have been happy to live with English as
the<SPAN> </SPAN><I>lingua franca</I><SPAN> </SPAN>(what a strange
misnomer!), but the Asian-speaking world is not likely to be so accommodating.
We shall have to begin to treat open access as a matter involving automatic
translation, at first maybe just for metadata, but later for the whole
article.<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Richard, you said
you’d like to see short posts dominate this list, so I’ve been brief to the
point of encryption. I am happy to expand on any of the previous four
paragraphs, recognising that some of them are separable issues. I hope I have
been controversial enough to get some
responses.<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Arthur
Sale<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">University of
Tasmania, Australia<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P></DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'"></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT class=Apple-style-span size=4
face="Helvetica, sans-serif"><BR></FONT></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>GOAL mailing
list<BR>GOAL@eprints.org<BR>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>