Spot on. Spot on. At last, efficient pragmatism! I am all for it. A rigid line of priorities is like a Maginot line...
Jean-Claude -- Jean-Claude Gu?don Professeur titulaire Litt?rature compar?e Universit? de Montr?al Le mardi 01 mai 2012 ? 15:08 +0100, David Prosser a ?crit : > > Whenever I talk to university administrators, heads of school, individual > > researchers, or other library staff about Open Access I have to be > > strategic about it. I have to predict which of the many arguments in favour > > of Open Access will resonate most directly with the specific audience. > > Brava! The whole point in a nutshell. We have a list of benefits of OA - we > should tailor the list depending on which of the benefits is most effective > at any particular moment with whatever the particular audience is that we > find ourselves in front of. If I can find an ally then I will take their > support - even if they have been convinced by only the officially sanctioned > third highest OA priority. > > David > > > > > On 1 May 2012, at 00:01, Vanessa Barrett wrote: > > > Stevan Harnad says "The idea is to find reasons why those researchers > > should provide > > OA (80% of them are not doing it) and why their institutions and > > funders should mandate that they do it." > > > > Note the use of reason as a plural, not singular noun. There is no one > > reason to rule them all. > > > > Whenever I talk to university administrators, heads of school, individual > > researchers, or other library staff about Open Access I have to be > > strategic about it. I have to predict which of the many arguments in favour > > of Open Access will resonate most directly with the specific audience. > > > > I have learnt a lot from Stevan Harnad's tireless work in promoting Open > > Access. His presentation on "Mandates and Metrics: How Open Repositories > > Enable Universities to Manage, Measure and Maximise their Research Assets" > > http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265693/ is a powerful tool in building > > persuasive cases for OA, but it contains 100 slides and there are few > > occasions where I have the luxury of having that much time to present the > > case for OA. > > > > Instead I need to be prepared to focus in on one or two arguments that will > > gain most traction with the audience I have. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Vanessa Barrett > > Digital Services Librarian > > The University of Adelaide, AUSTRALIA 5005 > > Ph : +61 8 8313 4625 > > e-mail: vanessa.barrett at adelaide.edu.au > > > > CRICOS Provider Number 00123M > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > This email message is intended only for the addressee(s) > > and contains information which may be confidential and/or > > copyright. If you are not the intended recipient please > > do not read, save, forward, disclose, or copy the contents > > of this email. If this email has been sent to you in error, > > please notify the sender by reply email and delete this > > email and any copies or links to this email completely and > > immediately from your system. No representation is made > > that this email is free of viruses. Virus scanning is > > recommended and is the responsibility of the recipient. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On > > Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > > Sent: Tuesday, 1 May 2012 12:24 AM > > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access > > > > On 2012-04-30, at 7:16 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > > >> The idea that there is a set of "researchers" in Universities who > >> deserve special consideration and for whom public funds must > >> be spent is offensive. > > > > The idea is to find reasons why those researchers should provide > > OA (80% of them are not doing it) and why their institutions and > > funders should mandate that they do it. > > > > Peer access is a credible, practical reason, pertains to all > > research and researchers, and is based on their own self-interest. > > > > Public access is worthy, desirable, and automatically comes along > > with OA, but on its own it is not a credible, practical reason, > > pertaining to all research and researchers, and based on their > > own self-interest. > > > > That is the practical, strategic reason why peer access needs to be > > primary and public access secondary, in promoting rationales > > for providing and mandating OA. > > > >> I fall directly into SH's category of "the general public", > > > > Not at all. PM-R is a researcher, whether retired or not. > > He falls squarely in the category of peer access rather > > than public access. > > > >> I am a supporter of publicly funded Gold OA and of domain repositories. > >> I am not prepared for these to be dismissed ex cathedra. > > > > Eighty percent of researchers are not providing OA. That's why OA > > mandates are needed, from researchers' institutions and funders. > > > > Gold OA publishing cannot be mandated, only Green OA self-archiving > > can be. > > > > Only some research is funded, but all research comes from institutions. > > Hence funder mandates and institutional mandates need to be > > convergent and mutually reinforcing rather than divergent and competitive: > > > > The locus of mandatory deposit should be institutional: domain repositories > > can then harvest the data or metadata. > > > > None of this is ideological or ex cathedra. These are considerations > > of direct practical strategy, to get us out of the 20% OA where we have been > > stalled for a decade, to 100% OA. through institutional and funder mandates. > > > >> I have personally not many scientists who are highly committed to Green OA > > > > Quite. Only about 20% of researchers provide OA unmandated (about 2/3 of > > that via Green OA self-archiving and 1/3 via Gold OA publishing). > > > > That's why the mandates are needed from institutions and funders. > > > > Ideology and exhortations alone will not do the trick, > > > >> There is an increasing amount of scholarship taking place outside > >> Universities > >> and without the public purse. > > > > Does it result in peer-reviewed publications? Then it falls under the > > strategic > > discussion about priorities that is underway here. Otherwise not. > > > >> Wikipedia is, perhaps, the best example of this and could - if minds were > >> open - > >> act as an interesting approach to respositories. > > > > Wikipedia is unrefereed and explicitly excludes primary research. > > > > What needs to be open is access to refereed, published research -- and > > it is evident that for 80% of that, effective mandates will be needed. > > > >> It's notable that uptake of publication-related tools such as WP, > >> Figshare, Dryad, > >> Mendeley, etc. is high, because people actually want them. I would like to > >> see > >> effort on information-saving and sharing tools that people need and > >> community > >> repositories. > > > > There is so far no evidence at all that OA is being provided by researchers, > > via these tools, unmandated, at a rate any higher than the unmandated > > OA baseline (20%). > > > > So we are still left with the practical, strategic challenge of getting OA > > mandated > > and hence provided. > > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20120501/e9d5cbeb/attachment-0001.html
