We could argue over whether there is such a thing as an open access movement. What I think we can agree on is that no official OA organisation was ever created in order to reach democratic consensus on a coherent and coordinated set of policies and solutions. That is why OA advocates (if you prefer to have it expressed that way) have spent the last 13 years arguing with one another. And that is why governments and research funders are now taking charge and coming up with solutions that will likely prove less than optimal.
I also agree that open access should be viewed as a prelude to a much wider reform of the way scientific knowledge is recorded, published, promulgated and used. But in the absence of an OA organisation and a democratic consensus within the research community governments look set to insist on solutions that will increase the power of legacy publishers and their legacy journals, and this will make the kind of reform that you and I would like to see much harder to achieve, and certainly much longer in coming. But I am going to leave the discussion at this point. Richard Poynder From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Velterop Sent: 31 December 2015 11:29 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode 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-goi ng-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> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Velterop Sent: 30 December 2015 16:05 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <mailto:goal@eprints.org> <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 <mailto: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
