Hi, As it was part of my thesis work, let me shed some light with a few field experiences.
The push toward OA in building here is very tied to the (positive) sensibility of documentalists and some key researchers helping the process and granting 'good notoriety'. In the process of making researchers (first hand experience): * In Lille1 (a north of France university "hard science oriented") the doctoral cursus orientation is toward "valorization trough intellectual property", a module also exist called "valorisation of knowledge with wikipedia" though. But there was less participants (I did both). Furthermore, it's not related to scientific journal publications. * In Lille 3 (a neighbor university of Lille 1 but more social science oriented), in the doctoral school - and lab - my sister was in, they introduce (with the main documentalist) HAL open archive, the way to deposit, sherpa romeo's site <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/index.php> to know what version researchers can deposit without fearing legal set-back (...) * A Chinese colleague that went back to china wrote me recently his career was delayed due to insufficient number of publications (in certain journals). Career building is rarely based on providing to civil society what they paid for. * A contrary example is Liège university (Belgium) ( http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/102031) "The Liège ORBi model: Mandatory policy without rights retention but linked to assessment processes". At this point I have the embedded elitism in research will make an OA winning campaign, not based on universities power (those in power there hold position thanks to this knowledge retention system tied to their notoriety building), but to the political power related to universities and research. Towns, regions (any political circle) with access to a say in research funding. Massively explain the triple payment for citizens to access research and put political faces in relation to this with incoming electoral front in each country (that would be quite continuous). Non confidential work defense are also public (PhD, HDR), go with journalist and in public ask questions about the accessible work of the defendant, the jury... who's getting a diploma, a title or a position and not providing the research to the citizens giving their wages. Universities elections are also occasion to put this kind of 'strikes". As this program requires wo-men-power : A few month ago (almost a year now) I started a few pages around an alternative publication model that I consider needed for sustainability assessment (a very data intensive field). https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Projet:Journal_scientifique_libre/Communaut% C3%A9 I was granted the right to use the list of Elsevier's ban "The cost of knowledge" from the mathematician who started it ( https://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/Projet:Journal_scientifique_libre/Communaut% C3%A9/the-cost-of-knowledge). By the time I got Tyler Neylon's GO for it, complications with my hierarchy reached its pic and I was no longer officially PhD student, with no HDR (prof) to go on. I'll forward to the list Tyler's answer so you can reach him and see how you can crowd-source your action. BR Rudy On 21 September 2017 at 19:46, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote: > John Dove, 21/09/2017 19:52: > >> Maybe there's a way to use Wikipedia's model of >> volunteerism-for-the-benefit-of-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge, to >> recruit local helpers (including librarians) to the tasks of >> scholar-deposits on a particular campus. ??? >> > > Yes, that's definitely something I'm exploring. I'm going to conduct some > pilots with a couple universities to see how far we can go and what tools > work. > > > Federico > > _______________________________________________ > OpenAccess mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess >
_______________________________________________ OpenAccess mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/openaccess
