Stevan and others:This is also a response to the long thread on "Open Access Priorities: Peer Access and Public Access". I am responding in this thread as it includes the issue of "OA Pragmatics".
Over the years, you and others on this list have amassed a wealth of analysis and data that favors OA. In the process, you and most of us have our favored OA mechanisms and policies. And GOAL provides spirited debates on every OA detail there is. Yet, detail is not what is needed. We need a clear and simple message that is capable of inducing many independent strong-willed individuals to change behavior. Most of these individuals are part of old institutions with long-ingrained traditions. Changing their behavior is a political problem, not one of analytics. The target group for the OA campaign consists of PhDs, and we tend to think that they are best approached with analysis. That is true, but for most OA is at most a peripheral issue on which they do not wish to spend a lot of time. The Harvard memo is an example of a complicated political message: it does not say to do one thing, it says to consider doing five or six things if the opportunity should so arise. Your list of priorities is clearer, but it is long and (politically) complicated. Policies (like mandates) are difficult to maintain over many years. In year one, there may be a motivated university president/chancellor/provost/... to serve as enforcer, but by year 2, 3, 4, or 5, this person moves on, and the mandate-exception list grows, partially erasing any OA gains. Because of the distributed nature of all of the research institutions, this is asynchronous process. Today, it is Harvard that is interested in OA and the journal crisis. Tomorrow, it will be other major institutions. Yet, many of the proposed OA policies will only be effective if implemented at a significant fraction of institutions simultaneously. Although starting an institutional repository is now easy from a technical point of view, it still generates a mountain of meetings, discussions, etc. Many initiatives die a slow death or are kept barely alive because of such implementation and political delays. What we need is one focused message that can be used by a president/chancellor/provost/... who is aware of the OA value proposition and wants to do something something about it now. These leaders exist, but they cannot afford to spend three years fighting the fight only to have it reversed after they leave. A few may be willing to fight six months, perhaps even a year, if they can put in place an irreversible policy to lead their institution to OA. --Eric. http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Google Voice: (626) 898-5415Telephone:    (626) 376-5415 Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde E-mail: [email protected] On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: On 2012-04-29, at 3:52 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: > By all means where there are opportunities to promote mandates > let us do that, but not at the expense of making the moral and > societal responsibility case for OA. By all means where there are opportunities to make  the moral and societal responsibility case for OA let us do that, but not at the expense of promoting mandates. Researchers themselves are the only ones who can provide OA, and their institutions and funders (not "dinner parties or the pub") are the only ones can mandate that they do it -- not for ideological reasons, but out of practical self-interest. And, to repeat: OA means public access too. Stevan Harnad _______________________________________________ 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
