<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
The mistake is to think of open access as a 'movement' with coherent
and coordinated policies and providing solutions. It isn't and it
won't. Individual advocates may propose (partial) solutions, propose
compromises, propose different interpretations of the idea, et
cetera, but they are individuals, not 'the OA movement'. <br>
<br>
Open access is much more akin to an emerging zeigeist, detected and
recognised early by some, who deemed it worth while to define,
propagate, and advocate the idea, which is gradually, albeit slowly,
finding wider support. Different OA enthusiasts have different ideas
as to what it is, have different expectations, see different
opportunities or purposes, even have different definitions. Some see
it as a way to reduce costs, others as a way to change business
model and even increase income, yet others as a way to reform the
entire publishing system, and some even primarily as a way to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of scientific
communication.<br>
<br>
I myself see open access as the prelude to a much needed but much
wider reform of the way scientific knowledge is recorded, published,
promulgated and used, even including the way peer review is
organised and carried out (I favour methods such as this one:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://about.scienceopen.com/peer-review-by-endorsement-pre/">http://about.scienceopen.com/peer-review-by-endorsement-pre/</a>), in
order to make the most, world-wide, in society at large and not just
in academic circles, of the scientific knowledge that is generated
and of insights that are gained. Open access is the first,
necessary, step, but by no means the final goal.<br>
<br>
"Some may think that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" as
John Lennon famously sang. I hope I'm not the only one, anyway.<br>
<br>
Jan Velterop<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/12/2015 08:16, Richard Poynder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:000001d143a3$949a5e90$bdcf1bb0$@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I
don’t think it matters whether or not it is a rubbish
argument. If that is what politicians believe, or how they
want to justify their decisions, then the strength or
weakness of the argument is not the key factor. And as
Andrew Odlyzko points out, it may be more a case
of protecting jobs than tax receipts. Certainly the UK has
talked in terms of supporting the publishing industry, and
The Netherlands will (as you say) have that in mind. Both
these countries are in the vanguard of pushing for national
deals with publishers, and both are seeking to persuade
other countries to do the same — as was doubtless what the
UK sought to do in 2013 when it had G8 Presidency: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g8-science-ministers-statement"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g8-science-ministers-statement">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g8-science-ministers-statement</a></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">That
said, this CNI presentation argues that the US and Europe
could be moving in different directions with OA: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.cni.org/topics/e-journals/is-gold-open-access-sustainable-update-from-the-uc-pay-it-forward-project"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.cni.org/topics/e-journals/is-gold-open-access-sustainable-update-from-the-uc-pay-it-forward-project">https://www.cni.org/topics/e-journals/is-gold-open-access-sustainable-update-from-the-uc-pay-it-forward-project</a></a>.
But even if that is true today, for how long will they drift
apart?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">The
fact is that the OA movement has spent the last 13 years
arguing with itself. During that time it has convinced
governments and research funders that OA is desirable. What
is has not done is shown how it can be achieved effectively.
In such situations, at some point governments inevitably
step in and make the decisions. And that is how Dutch
Minister Sander Dekker expressed it last year: “[W]hy are we
not much farther advanced in open access in 2014? The world
has definitely not stood still in the last ten years. How
can it be that the scientific world – which has always been
a frontrunner in innovation - has made so little progress on
this? Why are most scientific journals still hidden away
behind paywalls?” <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/toespraken/2014/01/28/open-acess-going-for-gold">https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/toespraken/2014/01/28/open-acess-going-for-gold</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">In
the absence of unity in the OA movement, who better for
governments to work with in order to achieve OA than with
publishers, either directly, or by instructing national
research funders to get on with it (as the UK did with
RCUK). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">This
suggests to me that the OA is set to slip into closed mode,
with behind-closed-doors meetings and negotiations. As
Andrew points out, “Secret national-level negotiations with
commercial entities about pricing are not uncommon.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Richard
Poynder<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
lang="EN-US"> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Velterop<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 30 December 2015 16:05<br>
<b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><goal@eprints.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Re: The open access movement
slips into closed mode<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">What a rubbish
argument! This can only be true of a small country with a
disproportionally massive commercial scholarly publishing
sector (that isn't avoiding taxes via some small island tax
haven). <br>
<br>
The Netherlands? Perhaps Britain? That's it.<br>
<br>
Jan Velterop<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 30/12/2015 12:25, Richard Poynder
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">As Keith
Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have
been progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me
at an appropriate political level was that the tax-take
from commercial publishers was greater than the cost of
research libraries.” </span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://bit.ly/1OslVFW">http://bit.ly/1OslVFW</a><span
style="color:#1F497D">.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<i>C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road<br>
Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3PW<br>
United Kingdom<br>
+44 1483 579525 (landline)<br>
+44 7525 026991 (mobile)<br>
<br>
Noordland 44<br>
2548 WB Den Haag<br>
The Netherlands<br>
+31 707611166</i></div>
</body>
</html>