<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.2.2">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
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!<BR>
<BR>
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!<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Jean-Claude Guédon<BR>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<PRE>
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE>
<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
Le mardi 15 mai 2012 à 21:09 +0100, Jan Velterop a écrit :<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On 15 May 2012, at 19:57, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Universities will never collaborate (third law)<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
So there you have it, the Third Law of Acadynamics. Anybody surprised that private enterprise has stepped into the breach?
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
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.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
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.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
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.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
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.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Jan
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>