Thank you, Jan. Very well put. Jean-Claude Guédon
Le jeudi 12 décembre 2013 à 13:44 +0000, Jan Velterop a écrit : > But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI > definition is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you > navigate the ocean of politics and vested interests of science > publishing, you need to tack sometimes to make progress against the > wind. That's permissible, even necessary. But it doesn't change the > intended destination on which a good sailor keeps his focus. If that's > religion, anything is. (Which may be the case :-)). > > > One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the > goal. Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with > the overall course needed to reach the destination. > > In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the > goal of optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll > like. But that's a different discussion, I think > > Jan Velterop > > > > > On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, "Sally Morris" > <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by > > adhering so rigidly to tight definitions. A more relaxed focus on > > the end rather than the means might prove more appealing to the > > scholars for whose benefit it is supposed to exist > > > > Sally > > > > Sally Morris > > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 > > 3UU > > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On > > Behalf Of David Prosser > > Sent: 12 December 2013 08:37 > > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises > > CredibilityofBeall's List > > > > > > > > Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open > > Access Initiative to show that re-use was an integral part of the > > original definition of open access and not some later > > ('quasi-religeous') addition as Sally avers. And by doing so he is > > betraying some type of religious zeal? > > > > > > One of the interesting aspect of the open access debate has been the > > language. Those who argue against OA have been keen to paint OA > > advocates as 'zealots', extremists, and impractical idealists. I've > > always felt that such characterisation was an attempt to mask the > > paucity of argument. > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Sally Morris wrote: > > > > > > > > > I actually think that J-C's response illustrates very clearly how > > > OA has been mistaken for a religion, with its very own 'gospel'. > > > This, IMHO, is part of its problem! > > > > > > Sally > > > > > > Sally Morris > > > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 > > > 3UU > > > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > > > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] > > > On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon > > > Sent: 10 December 2013 15:26 > > > To: goal@eprints.org > > > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises > > > Credibility ofBeall's List > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In response to Sally, I would remind her that re-use was part of > > > the original BOAI declaration. Scholars and teachers need more > > > than eye-contact with articles. So, this is not a secondary > > > point. > > > > > > The immediacy issue concerns deposit; it is simply a pragmatic and > > > obvious point: capturing an article at time of acceptance is > > > optimal for exposure and circulation of information. If the > > > publisher does not allow public exposure and imposes an embargo - > > > thus slowing down the circulation of knowledge -, the private > > > request button allows for eye contact, at least. This button > > > solution is not optimal, but it will do on a pragmatic scale so > > > long as it is needed to circumvent publishers' tactics. > > > > > > Cost savings are not part of BOAI; it is a request by > > > administrators of research centres and their libraries. This said, > > > costs of OA publishing achieved by a platform such as Scielo are > > > way beneath the prices practised by commercial publishers > > > (including non-profit ones). And it should become obvious that if > > > you avoid 45% profit rates, you should benefit. > > > > > > The distinction between "nice" and "nasty" publishers is of > > > unknown origin and I would not subscribe to it. More > > > fundamentally, we should ask and ask again whether scientific > > > publishing is meant to help scientific research, or the reverse. > > > Seen from the former perspective, embargoes appear downright > > > absurd. > > > > > > As for why OA has not been widely accepted now, the answer is not > > > difficult to find: researchers are evaluated; the evaluation, > > > strangely enough, rests on journal reputations rather than on the > > > intrinsic quality of articles. Researchers simply adapt to this > > > weird competitive environment as best they can, and do not want to > > > endanger their career prospects in any way. As a result, what > > > counts for them is not how good their work is, but rather where > > > they can publish it. Open Access, by stressing a return to > > > intrinsic quality of work, implicitly challenges the present > > > competition rules. As such, it appears at best uncertain or even > > > threatening to researchers under career stress. So long as > > > evaluation rests on journal titles, the essential source of power > > > within scientific publishing will rest with the major > > > international publishers. They obviously believe research was > > > invented to serve them! > > > > > > The interesting point about mega journals, incidentally, is that > > > they are not really journals, but publishing platforms. Giving an > > > impact factor to PLoS One is stupid: citation cultures vary from > > > discipline to discipline, and the mix of disciplines within PLoS > > > One varies with time. Doing a simple average of the citations of > > > the whole is methodologically faulty: remember that scientists in > > > biomed disciplines quote about four times as much as > > > mathematicians. What if, over a certain period of time, the > > > proportion of mathematical articles triples for whatever reason? > > > The raw impact factor will go down. Does this mean anything in > > > terms of quality? Of course not! > > > > > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > > > > > Le mardi 10 décembre 2013 à 13:36 +0000, Sally Morris a écrit : > > > > > > > At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by OA > > > > conformists, let me say that – whatever ithe failings of his > > > > article – I thank Jeffrey Beall for raising some fundamental > > > > questions which are rarely, if ever, addressed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would put them under two general headings: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) What is the objective of OA? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I originally understood the objective to be to make scholarly > > > > research articles, in some form, accessible to all those who > > > > needed to read them. Subsequent refinements such as > > > > 'immediately', 'published version' and 'free to reuse' may have > > > > acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely secondary to > > > > this main objective. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, two other, financial, objectives (linked to each other, > > > > but not to the above) have gained increasing prominence. The > > > > first is the alleged cost saving (or at least cost shifting). > > > > The second - more malicious, and originally (but no longer) > > > > denied by OA's main proponents - is the undermining of > > > > publishers' businesses. If this were to work, we may be sure > > > > the effects would not be choosy about 'nice' or 'nasty' > > > > publishers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) Why hasn't OA been widely adopted by now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If – as we have been repetitively assured over many years – OA > > > > is self-evidently the right thing for scholars to do, why have > > > > so few of them done so voluntarily? As Jeffrey Beall points > > > > out, it seems very curious that scholars have to be forced, by > > > > mandates, to adopt a model which is supposedly preferable to the > > > > existing one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could it be that the monotonous rantings of the few and the > > > > tiresome debates about the fine detail are actually confusing > > > > scholars, and may even be putting them off? Just asking ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't disagree that the subscription model is not going to be > > > > able to address the problems we face in making the growing > > > > volume of research available to those who need it; but I'm not > > > > convinced that OA (whether Green, Gold or any combination) will > > > > either. I think the solution, if there > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
