The mistake is to think of open access as a 'movement' with coherent and
coordinated policies and providing solutions. It isn't and it won't.
Individual advocates may propose (partial) solutions, propose
compromises, propose different interpretations of the idea, et cetera,
but they are individuals, not 'the OA movement'.
Open access is much more akin to an emerging zeigeist, detected and
recognised early by some, who deemed it worth while to define,
propagate, and advocate the idea, which is gradually, albeit slowly,
finding wider support. Different OA enthusiasts have different ideas as
to what it is, have different expectations, see different opportunities
or purposes, even have different definitions. Some see it as a way to
reduce costs, others as a way to change business model and even increase
income, yet others as a way to reform the entire publishing system, and
some even primarily as a way to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of scientific communication.
I myself see open access as the prelude to a much needed but much wider
reform of the way scientific knowledge is recorded, published,
promulgated and used, even including the way peer review is organised
and carried out (I favour methods such as this one:
http://about.scienceopen.com/peer-review-by-endorsement-pre/), in order
to make the most, world-wide, in society at large and not just in
academic circles, of the scientific knowledge that is generated and of
insights that are gained. Open access is the first, necessary, step, but
by no means the final goal.
"Some may think that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" as John
Lennon famously sang. I hope I'm not the only one, anyway.
Jan Velterop
On 31/12/2015 08:16, Richard Poynder wrote:
I don’t think it matters whether or not it is a rubbish argument. If
that is what politicians believe, or how they want to justify their
decisions, then the strength or weakness of the argument is not the
key factor. And as Andrew Odlyzko points out, it may be
more a case of protecting jobs than tax receipts. Certainly the UK has
talked in terms of supporting the publishing industry, and The
Netherlands will (as you say) have that in mind. Both these countries
are in the vanguard of pushing for national deals with publishers, and
both are seeking to persuade other countries to do the same — as was
doubtless what the UK sought to do in 2013 when it had G8 Presidency:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g8-science-ministers-statement.
That said, this CNI presentation argues that the US and Europe could
be moving in different directions with OA:
https://www.cni.org/topics/e-journals/is-gold-open-access-sustainable-update-from-the-uc-pay-it-forward-project.
But even if that is true today, for how long will they drift apart?
The fact is that the OA movement has spent the last 13 years arguing
with itself. During that time it has convinced governments and
research funders that OA is desirable. What is has not done is shown
how it can be achieved effectively. In such situations, at some point
governments inevitably step in and make the decisions. And that is how
Dutch Minister Sander Dekker expressed it last year: “[W]hy are we not
much farther advanced in open access in 2014? The world has definitely
not stood still in the last ten years. How can it be that the
scientific world – which has always been a frontrunner in innovation -
has made so little progress on this? Why are most scientific journals
still hidden away behind paywalls?”
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/toespraken/2014/01/28/open-acess-going-for-gold
In the absence of unity in the OA movement, who better for governments
to work with in order to achieve OA than with publishers, either
directly, or by instructing national research funders to get on with
it (as the UK did with RCUK).
This suggests to me that the OA is set to slip into closed mode, with
behind-closed-doors meetings and negotiations. As Andrew points out,
“Secret national-level negotiations with commercial entities about
pricing are not uncommon.”
Richard Poynder
*From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
Behalf Of *Velterop
*Sent:* 30 December 2015 16:05
*To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
*Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode
What a rubbish argument! This can only be true of a small country with
a disproportionally massive commercial scholarly publishing sector
(that isn't avoiding taxes via some small island tax haven).
The Netherlands? Perhaps Britain? That's it.
Jan Velterop
On 30/12/2015 12:25, Richard Poynder wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
--
/C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road
Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3PW
United Kingdom
+44 1483 579525 (landline)
+44 7525 026991 (mobile)
Noordland 44
2548 WB Den Haag
The Netherlands
+31 707611166/
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
