<div dir="ltr">As Stevan mentioned, the previous thread "[GOAL] Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest "FIRST" Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc." is getting a bit unwieldy. So, I am starting this new one to reply to Stevan. I am cross-posting, because the original thread was.<div>
<br></div><div>Scholarly communication is a complex system with many interconnected components, and it is sometimes difficult to keep discussions focused. In an effort to be brief, I made the error of making too many logical steps at once.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Let me give it another try.</div><div><br></div><div>1. As a Belgian-American, I do not have a lot of opportunities to say this: the Belgians have got it right. The Belgian system should be the goal everywhere: Institutional Repositories integrated into national research networks. (And, eventually of course, into a global research network.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. Right now, the focus should be on getting content into the open-access universe. Every institution should pursue those open-access policies that make most sense to them. When formulating their policies, it makes sense to learn from those institutions who achieved the best results. So yes, Bernard Rentier and University of Liege deserve to be role models.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Up to this point, I do not think there are fundamental differences.</div><div><br></div><div>3. Looking down the road, I want more from IRs than what they currently offer. I want a system suitable for research, not just access to information. Such a system will require significant resources to put together. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I suspect we differ somewhat on this point, but I don't know whether the difference is on a point of substance or a point of messaging/advocacy. </div><div><br></div><div>Every OA advocate has advanced the argument that IRs are cheap to set up and run. Stevan makes that point often. I have made that point as well. I realize that I somewhat muddle the messaging when I say that I want more than what the current system offers. It is not a contradiction to want as much content as possible in the short term and develop a high-quality system in the long term. For advocacy purposes, it may indeed be the better strategy to focus on the simplicity of the initial system and get people involved.</div>
<div><br></div><div>4. However, those who are interested in the next-generation system should realize that the resources are available by rebuilding the academic library from the ground up.</div><div><br></div><div>Most of the library budget is eaten up by subscriptions and the overhead of managing subscriptions. Just by redirecting the overhead spent on managing subscriptions, we can build the next-generation OA system and born-digital library institution.</div>
<div><br></div><div>5. In fact, I firmly believe that if libraries continue to spend the overwhelming part of their budget on digitally recreating the paper universe, they are setting themselves up for institutional failure. This last point is independent of OA, and is just based on the different nature of digital information vs. paper-based information. As this is outside the scope of the OA discussion, I refer to my blog on this point. (<a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com</a>)</div>
<div><br></div><div>I hope this clarifies things a bit.</div><div>My best,</div><div>--Eric.</div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><a href="http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com</a><br>
<div>Twitter: @evdvelde</div><div><div>E-mail: <a href="mailto:eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com" target="_blank">eric.f.vandevelde@gmail.com</a></div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div></div></div>