On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> However, the way I see it is that as research funders (like Max Planck > and RCUK), governments and publishers increasingly come to accept the > inevitability of open access so the way in which it is achieved, and the > way in which the details (and costs) are negotiated, are likely to become > increasingly non-transparent (much as Big Deals have always been). And to > me the invite-only nature of Berlin 12 foreshadows this development. > But none of this need happen if funders and institutions simply mandate immediate-deposit (effectively and enforceably, as Liege/HEFCE/REF2020 does). I don't think you are on the right track, Richard, when you object to deposit mandates as coercive, or contrary to academic freedom -- especially when the alternative is just a vague "don't make secret deals with Elsevier." I also anticipate that the OA big deals being put in place, and the > various journal “flipping” arrangements being proposed, will be more to the > benefit of publishers than to the research community. > You're certainly right about that. And so...? > As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have been > progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an appropriate > political level was that the tax-take from commercial publishers was > greater than the cost of research libraries.” http://bit.ly/1OslVFW. > That's probably simplistic. Which country's tax revenues? OA is a global matter. But certainly some bogus financial reckoning and deal is being confidentially offered by the publisher lobby, and credulously swallowed by uninformed government reps (e.g., the Finch fiasco in the UK and -- in the other country with a substantial publisher presence: the Netherlands) whose only sense is that OA would be a "good thing," but no realistic idea of how or why.. The question is: how could the open access have avoided this? What can it > do right now to mitigate the effects of these developments? > Researchers could have avoided it by providing immediate Green OA. Absent that, institutions and funders could have avoided it by mandating Green OA. And it can still by avoided by institutions and funders mandating Green OA. Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière, Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2016, in press) Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score. <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/> *Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST)* (in press) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/ Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan; & Harnad, Stevan (2015) *Open Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness*. *Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3 Report.*http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/ Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open Access: What, Where, When, How and Why. In: *Ethics, Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resource* eds. J. Britt Holbrook & Carl Mitcham, (2nd edition of* Encyclopedia of Science, Technology, and Ethics*, Farmington Hills MI: MacMillan Reference) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/ Harnad, Stevan (2015) Optimizing Open Access Policy. *The Serials Librarian*, 69(2), 133-141 http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381526/ <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381526/> S.H. > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *David Prosser > *Sent:* 30 December 2015 10:24 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode > > > > While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the > entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is > having confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State. > Meetings that are apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act: > > > > > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf > > > > I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning. > > > > David > > > > On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> > wrote: > > > > The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. > The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription > journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max > Planck Digital Library”. > > > > In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass > “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models. > > > > Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because > holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the > principles of openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003 > Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and > Humanities. > > > > Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and > transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open > access a reality, as well as of research outputs? > > > > Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means > of achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and > secret processes become the norm, with the costs and details of the > transition taking place outside the purview of the wider OA movement? If > that is right, would it matter? > > > > Some thoughts here: > http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html > > > > Richard Poynder > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
