My friend and comrade-at-arms, the Archivangelist of the Antipodes, Arthur Sale,
finds that Gold OA publishing is growing too slowly. (He's right.)
Arthur also finds that both Green OA self-archiving, and Green OA self-archiving
mandates (ID/OA) are growing too slowly. (He's right.)
Arthur predicts that more and more researchers will spontaneously begin to use
enhanced, interoperable, interactive electronic resources (much the way they now
already use word-processing, email and the web instead of typing and paper) so
that the writing, storing and record-keeping of their own articles, and
exchanging them with one another, will become so rich and interdigitated and
natural that it will be functionally equivalent to having deposited them in an
institutional OA repository, free for all.
He calls this the "Titanium Road" to OA (though it sounds rather like a
technologically supercharged version of the Green Road to me!).
And surely he is right that something along those lines is as optimal and
inevitable as OA itself.
The question is: Will its use grow any faster, of its own accord, than Gold or
Green OA have done?
Arthur's betting that it will -- and I of course wish he were right!
But after 20 years, I have given up completely on researcher voluntarism, even
when it is overwhelmingly in their own best interests.Â
It was voluntarism that I assumed would bring us universal OA "virtually
overnight" way back in 1994.
Technology has been doing nothing but making it easier and easier, and more and
more rewarding, for researchers to provide OA, year upon year, ever since.
Yet the ever simpler and more powerful technology has never succeeded in
inducing researchers -- or, rather, has not induced anywhere near enough
researchers (for it has always induced some of them) -- to make their work OA in
anywhere near sufficient numbers to reach that fabled OA "tipping point" that
everyone keeps talking about year upon year.
So I will make no predictions for 2012, except to say that if it's a pipe-dream
that voluntarism will ever kick in among researchers of its own accord, there is
still the hope that their funders and institutions will come to their senses and
make OA compulsory, by mandating it, as a condition for being employed and paid
to conduct and report research in the online era -- which ought long ago to have
become the OA era.
It is now a matter of tried, tested and demonstrated empirical -- and hence
historical -- Â fact that OA mandates, if adopted, *do* accelerate the growth of
OA for the research output of the funder or institution that mandated it -- soon
approaching 100%, when it's the optimal mandate (ID/OA, Liege model, as the sole
mechanism of submission for research performance assessment).
So the open empirical question now is whether adopting OA mandates will succeed
in kicking in among researchers' funders and institutions in sufficient numbers
-- in the way that providing OA spontaneously failed to do among researchers
themselves.
Fortunately, the number of funders and institutions worldwide that need to be
convinced of the benefits of mandating OA is an order of magnitude smaller than
the number of researchers that need to provide OA.
And a number of sizeable mandating initiatives among funders at the national
level have already successfully led to mandate adoption (notably among all the
major national funders in the UK, and some at the EU level: see ROAMAP), with
the biggest of all (COMPETES) now under deliberation in the US.
And at the global institutional level, there is now Bernard Rentier's and Alma
Swan's EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS), established to help guide the universal
providers of research, funded and unfunded, in all disciplines -- namely,
 universities and research institutions -- in designing OA policies worldwide.
So whereas there is no basis for crowing about "tipping points," there is reason
to hope that we may not have to keep waiting for technology to put us over the
top spontaneously via Arthur's "Titanium Road" -- though technology's help in
providing OA and enhancing its benefits is always welcome (and being actively
incorporated into the EPrints and DSpace repository software as well as into the
implementation of OA mandates almost as fast as it is developed).
Stevan Harnad
Superannuated Archivangelist
On 2011-12-18, at 4:12 PM, Arthur Sale wrote:
Richard, you asked what weâd like to see in 2012.
Â
Iâd like to see more open access journals, and higher prestige attached to
those that already exist. Who wouldnât? Iâd also like to see more ID/OA
mandated institutional repositories. Again who wouldnât? But I donât see
either strategy as taking Open Access to the tipping point where a
scholarly revolution becomes unstoppable. Why? Because both strategies are
too cerebral, too argumentative, too technological, and they require at
present unnatural actions on the part of researchers.
Â
What I want to predict is a growing number of researchers doing completely
natural things that have always been in their repertoire of work, for
example like keeping a lifetime record of their publications and ephemera.
It used to be a collection of paper, but the social media tools like
Mendeley now allow this to be electronic, and like the silent transition
from typewriters to the admittedly superior word processing software, I
predict we will see a silent transition to online in-the-cloud corpus
collections. Making this open access is technologically trivial, and I
have named this the Titanium Road to open access: light-weight, strong,
robust and recognises what people actually do.
Â
If I can make another prediction, I think that 2012 might just be the year
that we begin to question the copyright position of articles. Despite
legal transfer of copyright (sometimes) most publishers pay only
lip-service to their âownershipâ and carry out minimal due diligence in
their âpurchaseâ in return for services, and researchers respond with
total indifference by dispensing copies of the Version-of-Record as they
see fit. Never a week goes by when I do not see someone post to a list
âCan anyone send me a copy of Xxx by Yyy in journal Zzz?â and it appears
they almost always are satisfied by their later posts of effusive thanks.
The law in respect of scholarly articles has to change, and this might be
the year that we begin to see cracks open up.
Â
Finally, let me make my last prediction â that 2012 might see us begin to
address the issue of China, and the language barriers that look like being
a major part of the OA spectrum in this decade (2011-2020). The
English-speaking world and the European language speaking world have been
happy to live with English as the lingua franca (what a strange
misnomer!), but the Asian-speaking world is not likely to be so
accommodating. We shall have to begin to treat open access as a matter
involving automatic translation, at first maybe just for metadata, but
later for the whole article.
Â
Richard, you said youâd like to see short posts dominate this list, so
Iâve been brief to the point of encryption. I am happy to expand on any of
the previous four paragraphs, recognising that some of them are separable
issues. I hope I have been controversial enough to get some responses.
Â
Arthur Sale
University of Tasmania, Australia
Â
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
