[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT
Popvox forms cannot be sent unless one mentions the name of a US state and therefore non-US citizens cannot fill in and send their views on any US bill! Arun From: William Gunn william.gunn at gmail.com To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal at eprints.org Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2012, 10:29 Subject: [GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT The best place for petition-signing is probably Popvox. They (supposedly) provide summary reports directly to legislative offices. https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3699/report William Gunn +1 646 755 9862 http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/ On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk wrote: Although I am trying to find time to craft my own response is there any coordinated action on this issue. Somewhere where we can point 10,000 people to and simply get them to add to the count. We did this is Europe for software patents and get 250,000 signatures. I have 30 people tomorrow that I want to urge to sign something but where is the something to sign? If I hadn't been actively involved in OA I wouldn't even heard of HR3699 and RWA. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL at eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL at eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120218/10fa1337/attachment.html
[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT
Michael Eisen writes I have an op-ed in today's NYT about the Research Works Act Excellent job. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html I especially note Libraries should cut off their supply of money by canceling subscriptions. Finally somebody agrees with what I have been saying for years. It is libraries, rather than publishers or researchers, that hold back open access. Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT
Oh come on Thomas, I know you like to be provocative, but: It is not libraries that submit their papers to publishers and sign over exclusive rights, nor is it libraries that compel researchers to do so. It is not libraries that provide peer-review services to publishers for free It is not libraries that decide promotion and tenure conditions, or make research funding decisions based on the journal in which researchers publish, rather than the quality of the research itself. If libraries unilaterally cancelled all subscriptions today the immediate result would not be open access tomorrow - it would be the sacking of library directors by their institutions! David On 11 Jan 2012, at 08:08, Thomas Krichel wrote: Michael Eisen writes I have an op-ed in today's NYT about the Research Works Act Excellent job. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html I especially note Libraries should cut off their supply of money by canceling subscriptions. Finally somebody agrees with what I have been saying for years. It is libraries, rather than publishers or researchers, that hold back open access. Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel ___ 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] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT
The publishers' approach with Research Works Act is crass and indefensible. However, what Michael Eisen says is: Libraries should cut off their supply of money by canceling subscriptions. And most important, the N.I.H., universities and other public and private agencies that sponsor academic research should make it clear that fulfilling their mission requires that their researchersâ scholarly output be freely available to the public at the moment of publication. In what is this research to be published if the journals are all cancelled? Jump back one line above this quote and the suggestion is in journals like those published by the Public Library of Science, which I co-founded. Bear in mind this is not the whole BOAI approach to open access (green/gold). Bear in mind this act is not primarily against open access but against the mandates that are speeding up progress to open access (and about the ownership of research works, which we should not overlook either). Any reaction that seeks to cut off green open access is likely to be as damaging as the act itself. The great opportunity this act presents is the wave of new support for open access it appears to have unleashed. Let's not waste that with simple division and out-of-date rhetoric. Focus on the successes of open access (mandates such as NIH and many others including the best open access IRs, Arxiv of course and, yes, PLoS), and make it clear how these new supporters can contribute to continuing that progress. Steve Hitchcock WAIS Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 On 11 Jan 2012, at 08:08, Thomas Krichel wrote: Michael Eisen writes I have an op-ed in today's NYT about the Research Works Act Excellent job. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html I especially note Libraries should cut off their supply of money by canceling subscriptions. Finally somebody agrees with what I have been saying for years. It is libraries, rather than publishers or researchers, that hold back open access. Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel ___ 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] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT
David Prosser writes Oh come on Thomas, I know you like to be provocative, but: I think it better to stick to the issues, rather than personalise the debate. It is not libraries that submit their papers to publishers and sign over exclusive rights, nor is it libraries that compel researchers to do so. This is orthogonal to the open vs toll-gated access issue, since the sign-over could occur also to an open-access outlet. I agree that blank sign-over of rights is bad in many cases but this not what the issue is about here. It is not libraries that provide peer-review services to publishers for free Again this is orthogonal to the open vs toll-gated access issue because the peer review is essentially the same process for open access as for toll-gated journals. It is not libraries that decide promotion and tenure conditions, or make research funding decisions based on the journal in which researchers publish, rather than the quality of the research itself. Again this is essentially orthogonal to the open vs closed access issue because the evaluation of research by the outlet is independent of the fact if the research is in an open access vs a toll-gated journal. I concede that the majority of high quality outlets are old. Thus evaluation by outlet introduces a bias. Dismissing academics as only looking at the publishing outlet when evaluation research quality strikes me as provocative but it's a provocation that is not central to the toll-gated vs open-access debate. If libraries unilaterally cancelled all subscriptions today the immediate result would not be open access tomorrow - it would be the sacking of library directors by their institutions! This is completely unproven. I suggest to give half of the money saved for faculty travel and/or submission fees to journals and half to institutional repository (IR) development. All jobs in the library will be saved and new staff for IR development will be hired in the library. My assertion is as unproven as David's, of course. Now back to bed... Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT
Thomas Your original assertion was: It is libraries, rather than publishers or researchers, that hold back open access. The point I was trying to make was that it is researchers who maintain the current system by submitting their papers to subscription journals; it is researchers who who maintain the current system by signing their rights to subscription journals so limiting open access options; it is researchers who who maintain the current system by peer reviewing papers in subscription journals; and it is funders and administrators who who maintain the current system by setting evaluation terms and conditions that encourage researchers to publish in subscription journals. All of these actions help to hold back open access and have absolutely nothing to do with libraries. Of course libraries purchase the subscriptions, but they don't do this on a whim. They do it because the researchers, administrators, and students at their institutions require them to do it. David On 11 Jan 2012, at 10:34, Thomas Krichel wrote: David Prosser writes Oh come on Thomas, I know you like to be provocative, but: I think it better to stick to the issues, rather than personalise the debate. It is not libraries that submit their papers to publishers and sign over exclusive rights, nor is it libraries that compel researchers to do so. This is orthogonal to the open vs toll-gated access issue, since the sign-over could occur also to an open-access outlet. I agree that blank sign-over of rights is bad in many cases but this not what the issue is about here. It is not libraries that provide peer-review services to publishers for free Again this is orthogonal to the open vs toll-gated access issue because the peer review is essentially the same process for open access as for toll-gated journals. It is not libraries that decide promotion and tenure conditions, or make research funding decisions based on the journal in which researchers publish, rather than the quality of the research itself. Again this is essentially orthogonal to the open vs closed access issue because the evaluation of research by the outlet is independent of the fact if the research is in an open access vs a toll-gated journal. I concede that the majority of high quality outlets are old. Thus evaluation by outlet introduces a bias. Dismissing academics as only looking at the publishing outlet when evaluation research quality strikes me as provocative but it's a provocation that is not central to the toll-gated vs open-access debate. If libraries unilaterally cancelled all subscriptions today the immediate result would not be open access tomorrow - it would be the sacking of library directors by their institutions! This is completely unproven. I suggest to give half of the money saved for faculty travel and/or submission fees to journals and half to institutional repository (IR) development. All jobs in the library will be saved and new staff for IR development will be hired in the library. My assertion is as unproven as David's, of course. Now back to bed... Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel ___ 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] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT
Although I am trying to find time to craft my own response is there any coordinated action on this issue. Somewhere where we can point 10,000 people to and simply get them to add to the count. We did this is Europe for software patents and get 250,000 signatures. I have 30 people tomorrow that I want to urge to sign something but where is the something to sign? If I hadn't been actively involved in OA I wouldn't even heard of HR3699 and RWA. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT
For starters, try this Then this gks  H: +44 (0)141 422 1483 (after 18.00 GMT) C: +44 (0)7900441046 E: steelgrah...@gmail.com Fav: http://www.plos.org - research made public Fb: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=709026752 Blog: http://mcblawg.blogspot.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/McDawg FriendFeed: http://friendfeed.com/mcdawg  List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:53:04 + From: pm...@cam.ac.uk To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT Although I am trying to find time to craft my own response is there any coordinated action on this issue. Somewhere where we can point 10,000 people to and simply get them to add to the count. We did this is Europe for software patents and get 250,000 signatures. I have 30 people tomorrow that I want to urge to sign something but where is the something to sign? If I hadn't been actively involved in OA I wouldn't even heard of HR3699 and RWA. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
