I fully agree with Jan on this. jc
-- Jean-Claude Gu?don Professeur titulaire Litt?rature compar?e Universit? de Montr?al Le mardi 01 mai 2012 ? 15:25 +0100, Jan Velterop a ?crit : > I would simplify it further: > > "Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress, > funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to > their published research results." > > Any form of dirigisme as to how this is to be achieved is best avoided. > Avoiding prescriptions for the means helps keep the focus on the goal and > also leaves the door open for imaginative ways of convincing researchers, > funders and institutions, and even of achieving more OA in possibly more > effective ways. > > Jan Velterop > > On 1 May 2012, at 11:54, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > > I completely agree with my old comrade-at-arms Eric van de Velde > > (below) that one, short, simple, doable message is needed. > > > > BOAI 10, Enabling Open Scholarship and the SPARC > > OA Policy group are each working on providing such > > a message. (BOAI's will be released shortly by Peter Suber). > > > > The messages are still being crafted, but I certainly know > > what I think the message ought to be: > > > > -------- > > > > Research Funders and Institutions: > > > > 1. Open Access (OA) maximizes research usage, impact and > > progress. > > http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html > > > > 2. Mandate (i.e., require) that all researchers provide OA > > by self-archiving the final, refereed draft of all > > peer-reviewed journal articles in your institutional > > repository. > > http://roarmap.eprints.org/ > > > > 3. Free software is available to create an institutional > > repository if you don't yet have one. > > http://roar.eprints.org/ > > > > 4. The optimal OA mandate is called ID/OA, > > with deposit designated as the sole mechanism for > > submitting publications for institutional performance review. > > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html > > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/737-.html > > > > Do the above, and do not complicate with any of the > > following for the time being. They will all happen naturally > > of their own accord once ID/OA mandates prevail globally: > > > > X1. "Gold" OA Journal Publishing > > X2. Libre OA re-use rights > > X3. Copyright reform > > X4. Open Data > > X5. Publishing reform > > X6. Peer review reform > > X7. Digital preservation > > X8. etc. > > > > -------- > > > > We have not yet reached the fabled (and many times prematurely > > announced) "tipping point" for OA. Eric, despite heroic efforts, did > > not succeed in persuading CalTech to adopt an OA mandate > > hence his worries about whether it is possible at all: > > > > It *is* possible. ROARMAP contains examples of successful, sustainable > > OA mandates. See especially Southampton ECS, Liege, QUT and Minho. > > > > The secret is to keep it simple, forget about X1-X8 for now, and to keep > > trying. > > As more OA mandates are adopted (with the help of policy guidance for > > Enabling Open Scholarship, BOAI 10, SPARC OA Policy and -- let's hope > > -- the adoption of FRPAA), the mandate momentum will accelerate, gloablly > > and irreversibly. > > > > Just keep it simple (ID/OA) and don't over-reach! > > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > On 2012-04-30, at 6:22 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote: > > > >> Stevan and others: > >> This is also a response to the long thread on "Open Access Priorities: > >> Peer Access and Public Access". I am responding in this thread as it > >> includes the issue of "OA Pragmatics". > >> > >> Over the years, you and others on this list have amassed a wealth of > >> analysis and data that favors OA. In the process, you and most of us have > >> our favored OA mechanisms and policies. And GOAL provides spirited debates > >> on every OA detail there is. > >> > >> Yet, detail is not what is needed. We need a clear and simple message that > >> is capable of inducing many independent strong-willed individuals to > >> change behavior. Most of these individuals are part of old institutions > >> with long-ingrained traditions. Changing their behavior is a political > >> problem, not one of analytics. > >> > >> The target group for the OA campaign consists of PhDs, and we tend to > >> think that they are best approached with analysis. That is true, but for > >> most OA is at most a peripheral issue on which they do not wish to spend a > >> lot of time. The Harvard memo is an example of a complicated political > >> message: it does not say to do one thing, it says to consider doing five > >> or six things if the opportunity should so arise. Your list of priorities > >> is clearer, but it is long and (politically) complicated. > >> > >> Policies (like mandates) are difficult to maintain over many years. In > >> year one, there may be a motivated university > >> president/chancellor/provost/... to serve as enforcer, but by year 2, 3, > >> 4, or 5, this person moves on, and the mandate-exception list grows, > >> partially erasing any OA gains. Because of the distributed nature of all > >> of the research institutions, this is asynchronous process. Today, it is > >> Harvard that is interested in OA and the journal crisis. Tomorrow, it will > >> be other major institutions. Yet, many of the proposed OA policies will > >> only be effective if implemented at a significant fraction of institutions > >> simultaneously. > >> > >> Although starting an institutional repository is now easy from a technical > >> point of view, it still generates a mountain of meetings, discussions, > >> etc. Many initiatives die a slow death or are kept barely alive because of > >> such implementation and political delays. > >> > >> What we need is one focused message that can be used by a > >> president/chancellor/provost/... who is aware of the OA value proposition > >> and wants to do something something about it now. These leaders exist, but > >> they cannot afford to spend three years fighting the fight only to have it > >> reversed after they leave. A few may be willing to fight six months, > >> perhaps even a year, if they can put in place an irreversible policy to > >> lead their institution to OA. > >> --Eric. > >> > >> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com > >> > >> Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 > >> Telephone: (626) 376-5415 > >> Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde > >> E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk> > >> wrote: > >> On 2012-04-29, at 3:52 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: > >> > >>> By all means where there are opportunities to promote mandates > >>> let us do that, but not at the expense of making the moral and > >>> societal responsibility case for OA. > >> > >> By all means where there are opportunities to make the moral and > >> societal responsibility case for OA let us do that, but not at the expense > >> of promoting mandates. > >> > >> Researchers themselves are the only ones who can provide > >> OA, and their institutions and funders (not "dinner parties or the pub") > >> are the only ones can mandate that they do it -- not for ideological > >> reasons, but out of practical self-interest. > >> > >> And, to repeat: OA means public access too. > >> > >> 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/20120501/84449e71/attachment.html
