|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive [BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]boaiforum messages[BOAI] Re: Wrong Advice On Open Access: History Repeating ItselfFrom: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7oise_Salager=2DMeyer?= <francoise.sm AT gmail.com>
>I agree that the only solution is aN INSTITUTIONAL MANDATE. My question is: In view of the fact that all researchers want to publish in top-notch jornals (the 5.000 core journals), isnt' there an incompatibility between the pre-print publishing of peer-reviewed papers and the subsequent publishing of the papers in one such journal? Will the publisher agree that the pre-print be published? I have a problem, for example, with the commercial publisher Peter Lang. It does NOT allow me to put in my institutional repository the papers (post-print) that have been published in Peter Lang books. Elsevier acccepts the post-print publication under the conditon that one does not use the Elsevier logo. Can anymore please answer the pre-print question: will a commercial publisher accept that one put on one's institution IR the pre-prints of the papers to be later published in their journals? Thankx a lot. Françoise Salager-Meyer (Universidad de Los Andes, Mérida. Venezuela) I am about to give a lecture on Open Access in developing countries and I would very much like to have a reply to my question! **** >On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Noel, Robert E. <rnoel AT ↵ indiana.edu> wrote: > >> Does it make that much difference how universities, scholars, and ↵ readers >> arrive at Open Access? > >How they do it does not matter if they do arrive at OA. But it makes >every difference if they don't. > >> the price of "Nuclear Physics B" (Elsevier) >>has been going down in recent years >> and many users of that literature regard that as a positive thing > >Lower journal prices does not mean OA. > >> It makes me think that open access is not the primary goal, >> but that a specific path to open access is the primary goal > >No, OA is the primary goal and lowering journal subscription prices is >not a path toward that goal. (And journal boycott threats, even if >motivated by OA rather than journal pricing, are ineffectual, as the >PLoS boycott has shown.) > >Robert Noel is conflating the journal affordability problem and the >research accessibility problem. > >Stevan Harnad > > >On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Noel, Robert E. <rnoel AT ↵ indiana.edu> wrote: >> Does it make that much difference how >>universities, scholars, and readers arrive at >>Open Access? I'm a little puzzled by the >>lengths to which Steven Harnad goes to advance >>a specific path, while very deliberately >>excluding other cogent, seemingly sensible >>ideas. I have not talked to Jackson about >>"Getting Yourself out of the Business"; perhaps >>he read the "Wrong Advice" message below and >>now agrees with Mr. Harnad, I don't know. >> >> It seems the efforts of Berkeley's >>mathematician Rob Kirby (launched SPARC >>endorsed "Algebraic and Geometric Topology", >>and "Geometry and Topology") were largely >>seeded by the spirit of Jackson's strategy as >>opposed to any other strategy. Kirby has been >>concerned about commercial publishers' journal >>prices and took action that seems to me to have >>been constructive action (see Notices of the >>AMS, 2004, "Fleeced"). The message of that >>opinion piece again seems to me to be related >>to Jackson's points, and not so much to the >>Harnad solution. In what ways are the actions >>of Prof. Bruynooghe and JLP's editorial board >>roughly a decade ago a failure? The >>resignation of that Board was motivated by >>"Getting yourself out of the Business". >> Similarly, the price of "Nuclear Physics B" >>(Elsevier) has been going down in recent years >>and many users of that literature regard that >>as a positive thing. Many variables have >>driven that drop in price, and it's >>presumptuous to think that none of them have to >>do with Jackson's points. > > >> Anyway, others have devoted much more time and >>energy to this topic than I have, but I'm >>skeptical of recommendations that bluntly >>reject other strategies from the outset. It >>makes me think that open access is not the >>primary goal, but that a specific path to open >>access is the primary goal, and that access >>itself is a convenient result, but still an >>afterthought. It's tantamount to engineers and >>scientists recommending to policy makers that >>solar and wind energy are viable alternatives >>that will reduce a country's dependence on oil, >>but research into biofuels, maglev trains, and >>clean coal is utter nonsense, and reducing >>individual energy consumption by changing >>lifestyles is a sham, and in fact >>counterproductive. > > >> Does anyone on the planet have this much >>foresight as to how civilization should >>communicate and share information? >> >> Bob Noel >> Swain Hall Library >> Indiana University >> Bloomington, IN 47405 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: boai-forum-bounces AT ecs.soton.ac.uk >>[mailto:boai-forum-bounces AT ecs.soton.ac.uk] On >>Behalf Of Stevan Harnad >> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:35 AM >> To: American Scientist Open Access Forum >> Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum >> Subject: [BOAI] Wrong Advice On Open Access: History Repeating Itself >> >> [Apologies for Cross-Posting: Hyperlinked version is at: >> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/641-guid.html ] >> >> With every good intention, Jason Baird Jackson -- in "Getting ↵ Yourself >> Out of the Business in Five Easy Steps" >> >>http://jasonbairdjackson.com/2009/10/12/getting-yourself-out-of-the-business-in-five-easy-steps/ >> is giving the wrong advice on Open Access, recommending a strategy >> that has not only been tried and has failed and been superseded >> already, but a strategy that, with some reflection, could have been >> seen to be wrong-headed without even having to be tried: >> >> * Choose not to submit scholarly journal articles or other ↵ works to >> publications owned by for-profit firms. >> * Say no, when asked to undertake peer-review work on a book or >> article manuscript that has been submitted for publication by a >> for-profit publisher or a journal under the control of a commercial >> publisher. >> * Do not seek or accept the editorship of a journal owned or ↵ under the >> control of a commercial publisher. >> * Do not take on the role of series editor for a book series ↵ being >> published by a for-profit publisher. >> * Turn down invitations to join the editorial boards of ↵ commercially >> published journals or book series. >> >> In the year 2000, 34,000 biological researchers worldwide signed a >> boycott threat to stop publishing in and refereeing for their ↵ journals >> if those journals did not provide (what we would now call) Open ↵ Access >> (OA) to their articles. http://www.plos.org/about/letter.html >> >> Their boycott threat was ignored by the publishers of the journals, ↵ of >> course, because it was obvious to them if not to the researchers that >> the researchers had no viable alternative. And of course the >> researchers did not make good on their boycott threat when their >> journals failed to comply. >> >> The (likewise well-intentioned) activists who had launched the ↵ boycott >> threat then turned to another strategy: They launched the excellent >> PLoS journals (now celebrating their 5th anniversary) to prove that >> there could be viable OA journals of the highest quality. The >> experiment was a great success, and many more OA journals have since >> spawned, some of them (such as the BMC -- now Springer -- journals) ↵ of >> a quality comparable to conventional journals, some not. >> >> But what also became apparent from the (now 9-year) exercise was that >> providing OA by creating new journals, persuading authors to publish >> in them instead of in their established journals, with their >> track-records for quality, and finding the funds to pay for the ↵ author >> publication fees that many of the OA journals had to charge (since >> they could no longer make ends meet with subscriptions) was a very >> slow and uncertain process. >> >> There are at least 25,000 peer-reviewed journals published annually > > today, including a core of perhaps 5000 journals that constitute the >> top 20% of the journals in each field, the ones that most authors ↵ want >> to publish in, and most users want to access and use (and cite). >> >> There are now about 5000 OA journals too, likewise about 20%, but ↵ most >> -- unlike the PLoS journals (and perhaps the BMC/Springer and Hindawi >> journals) -- are far from being among the top 20% of journals. Hence >> most researchers in 2009 face much the same problem that the >> signatories of the 2000 PLoS boycott threat faced in 2000: For most >> researchers, it would mean a considerable sacrifice to renounce their >> preferred journals and publish instead in an OA journal: either (more > > often) OA journals with comparable quality standards do not exist, ↵ or >> their publication charges are a deterrent. >> >> Yet ever since 2000 (and earlier) there has been no need for either >> threats or sacrifice by researchers in order to have OA to all of the >> planet's peer-reviewed research output. For those same researchers ↵ who >> were signing boycott threats that they could not carry out could >> instead have used those keystrokes to make their own peer-reviewed >> research OA, by depositing their final, peer-reviewed drafts in OA >> repositories as soon as they were accepted for publication, to make >> them freely accessible online to all would-be users webwide, rather >> than just to those whose institutions could afford to subscribe to ↵ the >> journals in which they were published. >> >> Researchers could have made all their research OA spontaneously since >> at least 1994. They could have done it OAI-compliantly ↵ (interoperably) >> since at least 2000. >> >> But most researchers did not make their own research OA in 1994, nor >> in 2000, and even now in 2009, they seem to prefer petitioning >> publishers for it, rather than providing it for themselves. >> >> There is a solution (and researchers themselves have already revealed >> exactly what it was when they were surveyed). That solution is not >> more petitions and more waiting for publishers or journals to change >> their policies or their economics. It is for researchers' ↵ institutions >> and funders to mandate that their researchers provide OA to their own >> refereed research by depositing their final, peer-reviewed drafts in >> OA repositories as soon as they are accepted for publication, to make >> them freely accessible online to all would-be users webwide, rather >> than just to those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the >> journals in which they were published. >> >> I would like to suggest that Jason Jackson (and other well-meaning OA >> advocates) could do incomparably more for global OA by lobbying their >> own institutions (and funders) to adopt OA mandates than by launching >> more proposals to boycott publishers who decline to do what >> researchers can already do for themselves. (And meanwhile, they ↵ should >> deposit their articles spontaneously, even without a mandate.) >> >> OA Week 2009 would be a good time for the worldwide research ↵ community >> to come to this realization at long last, and reach for the solution >> that has been within its grasp all along. >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: >> http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f >> > > >-- >To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: >http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f [BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
|
E-mail: