I have just joined the GOAL list and would ike to make some suggestions about scope. I hope these can be taken in a spirit of neutrality and web-democracy.
First I should thank Stevan Harnad for his pioneering work in Open Access - he and I agree on much but by no means everything. I have likened some F/OSS projects to the succession model of Doctor Who (a long-standing British sci-fi cult TV series where every few years the Doctor "dies" and the regenerates in a different body). Seehttp://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1326254/the-doctor-who-model-of-open-so urce . So for me this is a natural and valuable regeneration. I have had several close interactions with RichardP. We have each intereviewed each other - Richard speaks in: http://www-pmr.ch.cam.ac.uk/wiki/Panton_Discussions_2010 and http://sms.cam.ac.uk/collection/1094046 (audio). I believe he has an objective view of "Open Access" and also a keen desire to see it prosper. The interviews he conducts are extremely penetrating and comprehensive. I believe we need a new type of open discussion in Open Access. I may upset some people in this posting but I have to say that I feel like an outsider in the Open Access movement and I know several other people who feel the same. We have no place where we can discuss Open Access matters in an objective manner - the current lists are either slanted towards a political agenda inappropriate to our views and requirements or represent communities to which most of us do not belong. What has therefore happened is a number of uncoordinated postings on blogs (including mine http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr) where we attempt to collect factual information in a responsible way or to discuss issues in an an objective manner. There are huge amounts of resources going into Open Access (Institutional Respositories, Open Access Author Publication Charges (APC) and funded projects, organisations and resources - I estimate this at hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Yet there is no central resource for the world. There is no body which represents the "Open Access" community in negotiations with publishers on, say, licences or author charges (which are among the issues I wish to discuss). As a result discussions have been uncoordinated, negotiating power with publishers has been (at least to my eyes) non-existent. I would like to discuss some of these issues which I believe are mainstream for "open access". I would like, at least, for me (and others) to have their voice heard, and to be given a reasonable hearing and to get factual or agreed answers to their concerns. So, before raising my concerns in detail, I would like to know whether this list is the appropriate place or, whether as some of my correspondents have suggested, we should set up our own list. P. -- 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 [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
