I agree with Jan. Read the Budapest Declaration of Open Access (Jan was a signatory). It is one of the most compelling documents in the last decade. (I have been tweeting it today):
"he public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. Removing access barriers to this literature will accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with the rich, make this literature as useful as it can be, and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge." This is technically possible today. We should be interchanging knowledge at all levels if we are to use knowledge to help support people and the planet. The Ebola outbreak in Liberia was predicted 35 years ago - it's still behind a paywall. I can mine the whole scientific literature every day for predictions of new viral outbreaks, of antibiotic resistance, of the spread of crop pests. of drug safety, of the effects of climate, ... It's all possible, except I will be sued by the publishers and hounded by senior academics. Either we see published knowledge as a critically important good, too precious not to use to the full ... ... or we perpetuate a system that deprives 90+% of humanity and often makes knowledge worse. P. On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote: > The thing is, Chris, that payments, be they APCs or subscription charges, > are for the 'service' of publisher-mediated peer review (plus 'prestige > ribbons') and access to publisher-mediated peer-reviewed (and 'ribboned') > articles. They are not for publishing one's research results per se. That > can be done at no cost or at very low, often negligible, cost. For instance > via 'preprint' facilities or other repositories. I realise that for many a > researcher having 'ribbons' pinned on their articles is important for > career advancement and possibly also for reputation, but that is where the > real problem lies. As long as the scholarly culture expects and demands > publisher-mediated peer review and the 'prestige ribbons' associated with > that, there will be a cost beyond the generally (very, or negligibly) low > cost of just making one's articles publicly and freely available – open – > to be reviewed, commented on, assessed, etc. by the community at large. The > process of proper scientific discourse, in other words. That's where > scicomm/scholcomm should be headed. I hope you agree. > > Best, > > Jan > > > Jan Velterop > > velte...@protonmail.com > > On 25/04/2018 12:17, Chris Zielinski wrote: > > Richard, > > In this context, you may be interested in a post I recently submitted to > the Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) list in the context of a HIFA > discussion of this topic: > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > To: HIFA - Healthcare Information For All <h...@dgroups.org> > <h...@dgroups.org> > Date: 18 April 2018 at 19:33 > Subject: Re: [hifa] Open Access Author Processing Charges (3) > > In the bad old days before Open Access (OA), a developing country author > wrote a paper and submitted it to a journal and, if the paper was good > enough, the generous people at the journal organized peer review, > redid/redesigned the tables and most of the graphics, and maybe even did > some language editing - at no cost to the author. Then they published the > journal, charging for access to the paper version and pay-walling any > online version. From the author's perspective, thus, there was no barrier > to publication, although there were cost barriers to reading the paper > subsequently, which was particularly onerous in poorer countries. So the > situation in developing countries was good for authors - who simply had to > write well - and bad for librarians and readers, who had to find the money > to buy the content. > > Now that Open Access is making serious inroads, we are finding the > situation reversed - librarians and readers bask in an avalanche of > cost-free online papers, while authors are scrambling to find the resources > to pay for publication.From the commentary on this list it is clear that > authors in developing countries are being restrained from publishing by the > "Article Processing Charge" (APC). > > Zoe Mullan, Editor of The Lancet Global Health makes the point that "we > assume that this cost will be borne by the funding body". This seems to be > rather more likely in industrialized countries than in developing ones. > > Basic research is much more frequently carried out in industrialized > countries and supported by the sort of international funding that pays for > papers. But the kind of health research that is essential in developing > countries - health services and health systems research - is generally > undertaken by local institutions and universities. This is a reason for > serious concern, as the economic model of OA appears to be blocking the > most important local research. I would add that this research needs to be > published internationally, not just locally, in order to attract opinions, > input and (in some cases) validation and consensus from the global health > community. > > Many OA journals have special rates, flexibilities and waivers for writers > from developing countries. It is also true that about a quarter of the OA > journals do not charge an APC at all - I presume they pay for their work by > sales of their print editions in industrialized countries, thus enabling > those in other countries free access to the online version. > > Incidentally, this is not just an issue for developing country writers - I > am a non-institutional writer in an industrialized country, writing papers > which are not based on funded research, and it is a real hardship to find > APC money to pay for my papers. > > Best, > > Chris > > Chris Zielinski > ch...@chriszielinski.com > Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and > http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com > Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net > > On 25 April 2018 at 08:47 Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> > <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> wrote: > > To try and get a sense of how open access looks from different parts of > the world, particularly as the strategy of engineering a global “flip” of > subscription journals to a pay-to-publish gold OA model gains more > traction, I am interested in talking to open access advocates in different > parts of the world, ideally by means of matched interviews. > > > > Earlier this month, for instance, I published a Q&A with Jeff > MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley’s University Librarian and Chief Digital > Scholarship Officer. (https://poynder.blogspot.co. > uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from.html). > > > > Yesterday, I published a matched Q&A covering the same themes with Mahmoud > Khalifa, a librarian at the Library of Congress Cairo Office, and DOAJ > Ambassador for the Middle East and Persian Gulf. This interview can be read > here: https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and- > open-access-view-from_24.html > > > > I have also been asking those I interview to comment on the answers given > by their matched interviewee. Mahmoud Khalifa’s response to the > MacKie-Mason Q&A is incorporated in this post: > https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and- > open-access-mahmoud.html > > > > I am open to suggestions for further matched interviews. > > > > Richard Poynder > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > *Noordland 44 2548 WB 's-Gravenhage (The Hague) Nederland (The > Netherlands) +31 707611166 (landline) +44 7525026991 (mobile) Voormalig > adres (Previous address): C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road Guildford, Surrey, > GU1 3PW United Kingdom * > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
