On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Brian Simboli wrote: > A few questions for Stevan Harnad [AND OTHERS], stated rather cryptically. > > 1. With respect to achieving universal open access to the results of > research, what is your vision of the best possible world to strive for "in > the long run" (to borrow a phrase of which economists are fond)? Would it > be a future in which the traditional journal as we know it still exists, > or would it be one in which that model is thoroughly deconstructed, such > that articles subsist independently of an organizing format such as a > "journal"?
The best possible world to strive for in the long run is one in which there is 100% Open Access. Yes, it will be a world in which the traditional journal still exists. Only one change is necessary: The full digital texts of all 2,500,000 articles published yearly in the world's 24,000 peer-reviewed journals must be immediately and permanently accessible online toll-free, i.e., they must be Open Access (OA). To achieve this change, the only action that is *necessary* is that all the authors of all those articles must self-archive their own published articles online in a OAI-compliant OA Eprint Archive. No change is necessary in journals. No change is necessary (or desirable) in peer review. http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html For critiques of "constructed" journals see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?O34F25209 or http://www.google.ca/search?q=+site:www.ecs.soton.ac.uk+harnad+amsci+deconstructed+journals&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0 A peer-reviewed journal is (and always has been) just a peer-review service-provider and certifier -- plus an access-provider. As long as the articles are all OA, there is no need for any of this to change, but it might, e.g.: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm > 2. What role does the green road play in achieving that best possible > world? For example, is it a dialectical moment toward a world of pure gold > access, or is "green"/ in se/ a worthwhile goal, regardlesss whether the > purely gold universe is ever achieved? Putting an end to all further online access-denial and all further needless research impact loss by providing 100% OA through self-archiving (green) is most definitely a worthwhile goal in itself for research and researchers, regardless of whether or not it leads to any further changes. (The article access/impact problem and the journal pricing/affordability problem are not the same problem. Solving the first does not necessarily solve the second -- though it definitely makes it less urgent and important.) Author-institution self-archiving (i.e., the green road) is the fastest and surest way to attain 100% OA, immediately. 100% OA may or may not thereafter lead to an eventual conversion to OA Journal Publishing (gold, 5% currently), but what is sure is that the golden road alone will not lead to 100% OA within our lifetimes! The green road will not lead us to 100% OA very soon either, if it keeps waiting for authors to self-archive spontaneously. Self-archiving needs to be mandated by their institutions and research-funders, in a natural online-age update of their already-existing publish-or-perish mandate. http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php The recent US House Appropriations Committee and UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee recommendations look as if they are at last moving in the direction of mandating self-archiving for all government funded research articles. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/congress.html Stevan Harnad
