<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 13 December 2013 13:14, Sally Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255);font-family:Arial">The few responses to my original posting have all focused on
whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the
underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented
at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly
enough):</span><br></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">1) The focus of OA seems to be, to a
considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the
hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying
power'</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If you are talking about Open Access - as defined by BOAI - rather than public access, then no. I don't agree with you. To a large extent, "real" Open Access has come about in conjunction with, and driven by, the publishing industry - whether that is for-profit or non-profit players.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The focus of some people who align themselves as being part of the open access movement - but don't necessarily demand Open Access in the defined sense - could be argued is the destruction of the publishing industry.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Peter can state his own opinion, but I don't see him as necessarily being that anti-publisher. He is anti-restricted access, he is anti-giving up ownership. There are plenty of commercially operated publishers that provide compatible terms - generally for an upfront APC, instead of a toll-access subscription.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">2) It still seems curious to me (as to
Beall) that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour
which is considered be self-evidently beneficial to them</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You could arguably say that access provided by repositories is not so self-evidently beneficial. Many won't hit access barriers, due to institutional subscriptions, so they have no need to seek out a repository alternative when the version of record is readily available. They aren't conferring any extra rights for text mining, re-use, etc. And they simply aren't that visible to them, so they don't necessarily see who and how they benefit. They may not even realise the repository exists where they can put their content.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Imho, it's easier to demonstrate the benefit of Open Access publishing, and maybe more might be willing to choose that route. Except they see the cost of possibly not publishing with the "leading" journal. They see the cost of having to pay an APC. And it's not even as simple as saying "make funds available to pay the APCs", because authors don't necessarily know that the funds are available, that they can claim, or how to. Wellcome Trust has already been down the route of simply making funds available to pay APCs, and it didn't make much difference to the take up - it took working with publishers to automatically route submissions that were associated with Wellcome funding to go via the Open Access route.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So certainly more education, but possibly still a little coercion may always be required.</div><div><br></div><div>G</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>