Dear Eric, I am so completely and utterly on your page. This is precisely the way we need to go and every library meeting I speak at confirms this view: everyone I meet there gives me the feedback that they're ready to go for it.
Thanks for making this important point! Bjoern On Monday, November 18, 2013, 5:17:37 PM, you wrote: > Stevan, Bernard: > My main concern is not with mandates, but with the > repositories themselves. If memory serves me right, there > was at least one unsuccessful attempt to defund the > NIH-run Pubmed repository. ArXiv also had an existential > crisis when run from a government lab. > The weakness of government-run repositories is that those > who want to undermine these repositories have to be > successful only once. Those who support these OA > repositories must fend off every attack. > To immunize against this, we need a distributed approach > with sufficient duplication to form an archive that is > immune from any one particular weakness. This is what > libraries have always done, and should continue to do. > Libraries have no role (except as advocates) in enacting > and enforcing mandates, but they can be useful in > implementing the mandates effectively by managing the distributed archive. > > In fact, Stevan has made the same arguments against > central repositories in the past. So, I think we are all > on the same wave length here up to this point. > Where I go one step further, is in making the argument > that libraries need to get out of the digital-lending > business altogether and dedicate their efforts to the > maintenance and development of the archive. See: > Where the Puck won't be > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/10/where-puck-wont-be.html > and > Annealing the Library > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/04/annealing-library.html > --Eric. > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com > Twitter: @evdvelde > E-mail: [email protected] > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Libraries are definitely places where awareness occurs. > They are the sentinels. However, they don't have enough > power (generally) to impose Open Access as a permanent reflex with > researchers. > The only way researchers can be convinced is through > mandatory pressure from the funders and/or the Academic > authorities. And the only way mandates can be imposed is > through the research assessment procedures. Everything else lingers or fails. > (82% compliance with incitative mandates instead of 8% > on average with 'soft' mandates). > If the pressure is applied through Green OA mandates, > academic freedom is fully respected. All it takes is 5 > minutes (max) extra work for each new publication (usually not a daily task). > Considering the benefits for the author(s), the mandate soon becomes > accessory. > >> Le 17 nov. 2013 à 23:11, Bjoern Brembs <[email protected]> a écrit : > >>> On Friday, November 15, 2013, 1:09:13 AM, you wrote: >>> The political approach may be necessary to get OA >>> enacted, but we need to implement OA in such a way that it >>> is immune from political influence. In my book, that seems >>> to be a perfect role for libraries. >> This is a serious problem with mandates: they are liable to political >> influence - and billions in $$$ pay for plenty of political influence, way >> more than we can ever dream of having. >> I thus support Eric's motion: we need to move everything in-house, away >> from any political influence. Libraries are the natural place for that. >> Best wishes, >> Bjoern >> -- >> Björn Brembs >> --------------------------------------------- >> http://brembs.net >> Neurogenetics >> Universität Regensburg >> Germany > >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- Björn Brembs --------------------------------------------- http://brembs.net Neurogenetics Universität Regensburg Germany _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
