Stevan sees the issue of providing open access primarily to scientists as strategic. I would have described it as tactical at best, but the main problem is that Stevan's strategy reinforces the ivory tower and the 'my-brain-is-bigger-than-yours' elitism. First of all, scientists are also members of the public in any area other than their own (sub)specialism. But more importantly, reinforcing the ivory tower undermines efforts to demonstrate the wide relevance science has to society at large, the absence of which will ultimately undermine the societal appreciation of science itself (especially when that needs to be expressed in money and respect for science). Reinforcing the ivory tower runs counter to the very welcome development of the sister notions of open access and open science.
Instead of arguing for peer-access as the primary goal of open access, efforts should be aimed at making the argument for OA strengthening the societal relevance of science, an argument that any scientist with a healthy dose of self-interest is bound to understand and take on board. Funders such as the Wellcome Trust are already doing important work in that regard. Jan Velterop On 28 Apr 2012, at 14:24, Stevan Harnad wrote: > The list of recommendations I made was strategic. > The objective was to maximize OA deposits and > maximize OA deposit mandates. > > The issue is not about how many members of the > general public might wish to read how many > peer-reviewed journal articles. > > The issue is strategic: What provides a viable, credible, > persuasive reason for researchers to provide OA > and for institutions and funders to mandate providing > OA in all fields of research, funded and unfunded, in > all disciplines. > > My point was that providing access for the the general > public is a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing > and mandating OA in some fields (notably health- related > research, but there may be other fields as well) -- but it > is not a viable, credible, persuasive reason for providing > OA in all fields, nor for all research. > > It is not difficult to find anecdotal evidence of nonspecialist > interest in specialized research; one's own interests often > go beyond one's own area of expertise. > > But that is user-based reasoning, whereas providing OA > and mandating OA require reasons that are viable, > credible and persuasive to providers of research -- and > not some providers, sometimes, but all providers, for all > research. > > The only reason for providing OA to research that is > valid, credible and persuasive for all research and > researchers is in order to ensure that it is accessible to > all of its intended users -- primarily peers -- and not just > to those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the > journal in which it was published. > > The issue is strategic. It is a great mistake to construe > giving priority to reasons for providing peer access > over reasons for providing public access as somehow > implying that public access should be denied: Public > access automatically comes with the territory with OA. > So public access denial is not the issue. > > The strategic issue is whether researchers (and their > institutions and funders) are more likely to be induced > to provide and mandate OA by the argument that the > public wants and needs access or by the argument that > peers want and need access. > > Peer access provides research progress and impact. > It is an appeal to researchers' self-interest to stress > the beneficial effects of OA on the uptake and impact of > their research. > > Most researchers of course also have a secret > yearning that their research should appeal not only > to their peers, but to the general public. But they also > know that that is probably just wishful thinking in most > cases. And in any case, public access does not have > the direct affect on their careers, funding, and research > progress that peer access has. > > So it is not that the enhancement of public access should > not be listed among the reasons for providing OA. It is > just that it should not be promoted as the first, foremost, > or universal reason for providing OA, because it is not: for > many or most researchers, that argument simply will not > work. > > Ditto for the argument that researchers need to provide > OA because journal subscriptions cost too much. The > eventual solution to the journal affordability crisis will > probably also come from providing and mandating OA. > But, like public access, journal affordability is not a > sufficiently compelling or universal rationale for > providing OA. > > The public access rationale for providing OA appeals > to politicians and voters. Good. Use it in order to help get > OA mandate legistlation adopted by research funders. > But the rationale is much less convincing to researchers > (peers) themselves, and their institutions. > > The journal affordability rationale for providing OA appeals > to librarians and institutions, but it is much less convincing > to researchers (peers). > > In contrast, providing OA in order to maximize research > progress and impact, by maximizing researcher (peer) > uptake, usage, applications and citations -- if backed up > by evidence -- is the way to convince all researchers, > funded and unfunded, in all disciplines, that it is in their > own best interests to provide OA to their research. > > Stevan Harnad > > Stevan Harnad > > On 2012-04-28, at 3:05 AM, Arthur Sale wrote: > >> Stevan >> >> I disagree with you in one regard. I agree that researchers are a main >> target but the general public cannot and should not be omitted. The place >> you go wrong is in your clauses 8 and 9. They are false, though perhaps a >> misguided intent is a better description. Almost all research papers are of >> interest to a subset of the general public (different for each paper, as for >> researchers). >> >> Not all researchers are capable of understanding all research. I am not. Not >> all of the general public are capable of understanding all research. But >> some (too many to ignore) are perfectly capable of understanding research >> articles and well capable of taking action on the content. As one of my >> hobbies I engage in Plant Tissue Culture. Hardly a week will go by than I >> get a plaintive post on a listserv: "can someone please give me a copy of >> 'xxx'". Substitute any title you like in the field. They are nearly always >> satisfied, by an illegal copy (I often see a "Thanks"). Most senders are too >> aware of the law to tell the list who they are. In this field (all plant >> science) at least, the general public has a strong interest, even if not all >> of the public do. Neither do all researchers want the same articles either. >> >> I am quite sure that this is true of other fields. I cite one of my most >> downloaded papers, which on the topic of computing the Pythagorean triads >> (eg [3,4.5 | 5,12,13 | 20,21,29 | 9,40,41 | ...). BTW there are an infinite >> number so the computation has to be bounded. Is that esoteric enough for >> you? Yet it is still my most downloaded article! I surmise that it is >> school-teachers and students who download it, but I do not sniff at them. >> Great! The work was worth writing up if I influence the kids. A subset of >> the public are interested in environment, astronomy, geology, you name it. >> >> I therefore state that in my opinion your reasons 8 and 9 are spurious and >> ought to never see the light of day again. I will fully agree that >> researchers, especially in third-world countries are an important target, >> but I suspect they are outnumbered by members of the general public in >> first- and second-world countries, who want open access and have internet >> access. >> >> I add that your conclusion is hampering OA in Australia. The head of ARC >> simply states that members of the general public can't understand research >> other than medical (as if that was easy either) and that closes the OA door. >> We should not allow unaware people such simple outs. >> >> Arthur Sale >> Tasmania, Australia >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf >> Of Stevan Harnad >> Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 8:48 AM >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum >> Subject: [GOAL] Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access >> >> The claim is often made that researchers (peers) have as much access to >> peer-reviewed research publications as they need -- that if there is any >> need for further access at all, it is not the peers who need it, but the >> general public. >> >> 1. Functionally, it doesn't matter whether open access (OA) is provided for >> peers or for public, because OA means that everyone gets access. >> >> 2. Strategically, however, it does matter, because currently OA is >> *not* being provided in anywhere near sufficient numbers spontaneously by >> researchers (peers). >> >> 3. This means that policies (mandates) from peers' institutions and funders >> are needed to induce peers to provide OA to their publications. >> >> 4. This means that credible and valid reasons must be found for peers' >> institutions and funders to mandate providing.OA. >> >> 5. For some fields of research -- especially health-relevant research >> -- public access is a strong reason for public funders to mandate providing >> public access. >> >> 6. But that still leaves all the rest of research, in all disciplines, >> funded and unfunded. >> >> 7. Most research is technical, intended to be used and applied by peer >> researchers in building further research and applications -- to the benefit >> of the general public. >> >> 8. But most peer-reviewed research reports themselves are neither >> understandable nor of direct interest to the general public as reading >> matter. >> >> 9. Hence, for most research, "public access to publicly funded research," is >> not reason enough for providing OA, nor for mandating that OA be provided. >> >> 10. The evidence that the primary intended users of peer-reviewed research >> -- researchers -- do not have anywhere near enough access is >> two-fold: >> >> 11. For many years, the ARL published statistics on the journal >> subscription/license access of US research universities: >> http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?task=setupstats >> >> 12. The fraction of journals that any university can afford to access via >> subscriptions.licenses has since become smaller, despite the "Big >> Deals: >> >> 13. The latest evidence comes from the university that can afford the >> largest fraction of journals: Harvard University >> http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup1 >> 43448 >> >> 14. Researchers' careers and funding as well as research progress depend on >> the accessibility, uptake and impact of the research output. >> >> 15. Open Access maximizes accessibility and enhances update and impact. >> http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html >> >> 16. Hence peer access, rather than just public access, is the reason >> (all) researchers (funded and unfunded, in all disciplines) should provide >> OA -- and the reason their institutions and funders should mandate that they >> provide OA. >> >> Stevan Harnad >> Enabling Open Scholarship >> http://www.openscholarship.org >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
