Stevan I disagree with you in one regard. I agree that researchers are a main target but the general public cannot and should not be omitted. The place you go wrong is in your clauses 8 and 9. They are false, though perhaps a misguided intent is a better description. Almost all research papers are of interest to a subset of the general public (different for each paper, as for researchers).
Not all researchers are capable of understanding all research. I am not. Not all of the general public are capable of understanding all research. But some (too many to ignore) are perfectly capable of understanding research articles and well capable of taking action on the content. As one of my hobbies I engage in Plant Tissue Culture. Hardly a week will go by than I get a plaintive post on a listserv: "can someone please give me a copy of 'xxx'". Substitute any title you like in the field. They are nearly always satisfied, by an illegal copy (I often see a "Thanks"). Most senders are too aware of the law to tell the list who they are. In this field (all plant science) at least, the general public has a strong interest, even if not all of the public do. Neither do all researchers want the same articles either. I am quite sure that this is true of other fields. I cite one of my most downloaded papers, which on the topic of computing the Pythagorean triads (eg [3,4.5 | 5,12,13 | 20,21,29 | 9,40,41 | ...). BTW there are an infinite number so the computation has to be bounded. Is that esoteric enough for you? Yet it is still my most downloaded article! I surmise that it is school-teachers and students who download it, but I do not sniff at them. Great! The work was worth writing up if I influence the kids. A subset of the public are interested in environment, astronomy, geology, you name it. I therefore state that in my opinion your reasons 8 and 9 are spurious and ought to never see the light of day again. I will fully agree that researchers, especially in third-world countries are an important target, but I suspect they are outnumbered by members of the general public in first- and second-world countries, who want open access and have internet access. I add that your conclusion is hampering OA in Australia. The head of ARC simply states that members of the general public can't understand research other than medical (as if that was easy either) and that closes the OA door. We should not allow unaware people such simple outs. Arthur Sale Tasmania, Australia -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Saturday, 28 April 2012 8:48 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum Subject: [GOAL] Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access The claim is often made that researchers (peers) have as much access to peer-reviewed research publications as they need -- that if there is any need for further access at all, it is not the peers who need it, but the general public. 1. Functionally, it doesn't matter whether open access (OA) is provided for peers or for public, because OA means that everyone gets access. 2. Strategically, however, it does matter, because currently OA is *not* being provided in anywhere near sufficient numbers spontaneously by researchers (peers). 3. This means that policies (mandates) from peers' institutions and funders are needed to induce peers to provide OA to their publications. 4. This means that credible and valid reasons must be found for peers' institutions and funders to mandate providing.OA. 5. For some fields of research -- especially health-relevant research -- public access is a strong reason for public funders to mandate providing public access. 6. But that still leaves all the rest of research, in all disciplines, funded and unfunded. 7. Most research is technical, intended to be used and applied by peer researchers in building further research and applications -- to the benefit of the general public. 8. But most peer-reviewed research reports themselves are neither understandable nor of direct interest to the general public as reading matter. 9. Hence, for most research, "public access to publicly funded research," is not reason enough for providing OA, nor for mandating that OA be provided. 10. The evidence that the primary intended users of peer-reviewed research -- researchers -- do not have anywhere near enough access is two-fold: 11. For many years, the ARL published statistics on the journal subscription/license access of US research universities: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?task=setupstats 12. The fraction of journals that any university can afford to access via subscriptions.licenses has since become smaller, despite the "Big Deals: 13. The latest evidence comes from the university that can afford the largest fraction of journals: Harvard University http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup1 43448 14. Researchers' careers and funding as well as research progress depend on the accessibility, uptake and impact of the research output. 15. Open Access maximizes accessibility and enhances update and impact. http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html 16. Hence peer access, rather than just public access, is the reason (all) researchers (funded and unfunded, in all disciplines) should provide OA -- and the reason their institutions and funders should mandate that they provide OA. Stevan Harnad Enabling Open Scholarship http://www.openscholarship.org _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
