I have read with great interest this debate because, in essence, it summarizes a
great deal of the disagreements I have had with Stevan over the years.
We all share a common goal -- namely OA -- but we do not construe the function,
situation and purpose of research in the same manner.
There is an interesting contradiction in Stevan's argument: while he wants to
have researchers provide access to their research results, these researchers do
not find it in themselves to do so, at least not at a level that exceeds 20% of
the lot. Hence the need for a mandate. However, the mandate, in the majority of
cases, does not come from researchers. It comes from funders, administrators,
etc., who see the importance of OA for reasons that may be the same as Stevan's,
but that will also involve their institutions, and their position within it.
These administrators, funders, etc., have to deal with public image, political
problems, etc. and they modulate their arguments accordingly. At that level, the
relationship with the general public, with lower levels of education, with civil
servants in need of up-to-date information, with SME's, etc., comes into play.
The total process is not logical, but rather discursive ("discourse" here is
taken in the sense developed by Michel Foucault). Logic is not absent from this
process, but it is only a part of it, and not always a dominant part. To map a
strategy that is realistic, one needs to recognize this point.
There is one situation where Stevan's attitude would retain a modicum of
coherence, and that is the Harvard case where the faculty slapped a mandate on
itself. In this case, the whole OA issue was handled by researchers alone, and
one could imagine that the internal debate was conducted according to research
values. However, any discussion with Stuart Shieber about the kind of footwork
needed to achieve this result shows that it encompassed far more than "pure
research" values. Even "pure" researchers, whoever they may be, have to stretch
their arguments beyond pure science to convince each other about an OA mandate.
Nothing surprising here!
Jean-Claude
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
Le lundi 30 avril 2012 à 12:16 +0100, Peter Murray-Rust a écrit :
I feel I have to speak out against the opinions voiced by Stevan - I
don't like to do this as there is - possibly - a common goal. But
they are so exclusionary that they must be challenged, if only for
those people people on the list and more widely who are looking for
guidance.
The idea that there is a set of "researchers" in Universities who
deserve special consideration and for whom public funds must be
spent is offensive. I fall directly into SH's category of "the
general public", whom he now identifies as of peripheral importance
and thankful for the crumbs that fall from his approach.. I have
worked in industry, work with industry and although I have been an
academic am not now paid as one. The idea that I am de facto
second-class is unacceptable, even if you accept the convoluted
logic that this is necessary to achieve Green Open Access.
Â
There are no areas of science and more generally scholarship which
are not in principle highly valuable to "the general public". I am,
for example, at present working in phylogenetics - not a discipline
I have been trained in - and I and my software wishes to read 10,000
papers per year. Most of these papers could be of great interest to
some people - they detail the speciation of organisms and are fully
understandable by, say, those whose hobby is natural history or
those with responsibility for decision making.
SH's pronouncements do considerable damage to the OA movement. I am
a supporter of publicly funded Gold OA and of domain repositories. I
am not prepared for these to be dismissed ex cathedra. Both work
well in the areas I am acquainted with - I am on the board of UK
PubMedCentral and also on the board of a BOIA-compliant Open Access
journal (where, by the way, half the papers come from outside
academia and are every bit as competent and valuable). I have
personally not many any scientists who are highly committed to Green
OA and before stating their position as "facts" it would be useful
to hear from them and listen.
There is an increasing amount of scholarship taking place outside
Universities and without the public purse. Wikipedia is, perhaps,
the best example of this and could - if minds were open - act as an
interesting approach to respositories. It's notable that uptake of
publication-related tools such as WP, Figshare, Dryad, Mendeley,
etc. is high, because people actually want them. I would like to see
effort on information-saving and sharing tools that people need and
community repositories.
I'll stop there - I sincerely hope that SH's list does not get wider
traction.
--
Peter Murray-Rust
emeritus Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________
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
