<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Marcin Wojnarski has just added some comments to the PDF of the Finch Report (at 'executive summary' in the full version) via Utopia Documents. He asked me: "Why don't you send info to GOAL list about this possibility? I think many people might be interested, as it's a very convenient way to share comments - and to put all one's comments in a single place."<div><br></div><div>So here it is: If you open the PDF of the report in Utopia Documents, you can comment on any portion of the text and submit them. There is no need for the comments or for the PDF to be sent around. It's just like magic, though the magic trick in this case is that the comments are being held, with information on what in the PDF is commented on, and separately from the PDF, which is not being held, on the Utopia Documents server and then shown, on the fly, if the PDF is opened with Utopia Documents.</div><div><br></div><div>You can add your own comments, of course. Utopia Documents is free and available, for Mac and Windows (an older Linux version is available and a new one is expected this summer) from <a href="http://utopiadocs.com">http://utopiadocs.com</a></div><div><br></div><div>Jan Velterop<div><br><div><div>On 20 Jun 2012, at 12:43, Marcin Wojnarski wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Below is my comment posted originally on Cameron Neylon's <a href="http://cameronneylon.net/blog/first-thoughts-on-the-finch-report-good-steps-but-missed-opportunities/#comment-562279021">blog</a>.
Can be of interest for GOAL.<br>
<br><p><i>On publicity front the Finch Report is a good news, as it
restates that Open Access is the way to go.<br>
On the more important policy-making front, it's a complete
failure and more of a harm than an aid in establishing universal
OA. Being the govt, I'd throw away this entire report and start
again from scratch, but with <u>renowned OA expert</u> as a
leader of the group and no publishers on the board (let them
write a separate report if they wish). My general feeling is
that Dame Janet Finch either didn't withstand the big pressure
of corporate interests; or she completely misunderstood the aim
of the study and her role as a chair. </i></p><p><i>The report contains very few quantitative facts - especially
when it comes to drafting conclusions for the policy - but lots
of gobbledygook, doubletalk and publishers' marketing stuff
aimed at obstructing OA. Even worse, it doesn't deliver on its
essential and most important promise: to give <u>policy
guidelines</u> for govt on how to make OA into mainstream.
Instead, it provides a long list of "Key actions" (see Executive
Summary) which are a perfect example of buzzword-compliant
non-speak: <br>
"Make a clear commitment", "Put in place arrangements", "Keep
under review", "Renew efforts to sustain and enhance",
"Establish effective and flexible mechanisms", "Provide clear
information", "continue to develop", consider, discuss, extend,
ensure, rationalise, examine, find ways, support, ... and do it
"carefully" and "in consultation"! - that's a brief but complete
summary of what Dame Finch recommends to the government. </i></p>
<i>I think they should withdraw her remuneration, because she simply
didn't do her job. And then make a new study, hopefully more
insightful than this one.</i><br>
<br>
------------<br>
Besides this report being incomplete and sloppy, it also poses a
serious threat to OA policy-making, because up to now it is the most
formalized and authoritative voice of scientific community and thus
the government can't just ignore it. The OA community should make a
very clear and unambiguous statement addressed to the govt saying
that this report is bad, <u>non-actionable</u> in terms of policy
making, and doesn't have acceptance of the community.<br>
<br>
BTW, note a funny thing: Dame Finch doesn't provide any clear plan
of what has to be done, but she knows (!) that this will cost
£50-60M. How can it be?!<br>
<br>
<br>
Marcin Wojnarski<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>