An excellent suggestion from Andrew. Â Who would be willing to approach Willetts to set up a meeting? Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim --- On Thu, 3/5/12, Andrew A. Adams <[email protected]> wrote: From: Andrew A. Adams <[email protected]> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Willett's Speech in Support of OA To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, 3 May, 2012, 2:04 > As trailed earlier, the speech made to the Publishers' Association earlier today by David Willetts (the UK Minister for Universities and Science) is now available. While we may quibble at some aspects, it is hugely supportive of OA: > > http://www.bis.gov.uk/news/speeches/david-willetts-public-access-to-research I'm afraid I do rather more than "quibble at some aspects". This shows the dangerous misunderstandings about OA that are hindering real progress (alongside the bizarre inability of most academics to see that we need OA as a body and that the quickest and easiest way to achieve it is to provide it mutually). Here are the phrases which worry me: "Our starting point is very simple. The Coalition is committed to the principle of public access to publicly-funded research results... Perhaps I might speak from the experience of writing my own book, The Pinch, on fairness between the generations. It was very frustrating to track down an article and then find it hidden behind a pay wall. That meant it was freely accessible to a professional in an academic institution, but not to me as an independent writer." He misunderstands that this problem exists for academics as well as the general public. "It would be deeply irresponsible to get rid of one business model and not put anything in its place." I am worried that he is concerned about the profits of publishers. Profits are not necessarily a natural part of academic publishing. If a profitable business model exists that reflects added value, then that's fine. However, finding a model in which costs are covered (and that can include subsidy from other sources such as membership to scholarly societies, direct university funding, direct public funding) without those costs being diverted into the coffers of a rent-seeking parasitic business is needed, not a way to ensure that someone makes profits while potentially hindering academic communication. Communication (between academics and from them to the rest of society) is the goal. "The crucial options are, as you know, called green and gold. Green means publishers are required to make research openly accessible within an agreed embargo period." Here is my biggest problem. Davd Willetts does not understand Green OA. Well, he's a minister. He generally won't understand all the details of every speech he makes (the "two brains nickname notwithstanding". What is more worrying is the fact that this speech reflects the lack of understanding amongst his speechwriters (political and civil servants who act as his general staff in deciding policy). With this fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that Green OA is about academics and institutions making their papers' contents available gratis while Gold OA is about publishers making papers' content available, any policy developed by the BIUS will be deeply flawed. I understand that in this speech he was talking to publishers. Perhaps we can somehow arrange for the Minister for Universities to come and give a talk at a UK university at which his message might be targetted to academics, instead. -- Professor Andrew A Adams           [email protected] Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan     http://www.a-cubed.info/ _______________________________________________ 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
