[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Richard Poynder]

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] On Behalf
Of Velterop
Sent: 30 December 2015 16:05
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
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

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Velterop]

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 asAndrew 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) 
*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

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Thank you, David.

Non disclosure agreements, closed meetings with political institutions
and individuals, and no one says anything. A small, benign, conference
with a few well-meaning researchers and librarians and anti-trust laws
as well as conspiracy theories are brandished (respectively by Esposito
and Poynder). Give me a break!

In the old, wonderful, John Ford Western, The Man who Shot Liberty
Valance, there is, toward the end, a very funny political talk by a
supporter of cattle rangers aiming to show that the hapless lawyer who
is (mistakenly) known as Valance's slayer was a murderer. The reality,
of course, was that Valance was about to finish off a man who could
hardly hold a gun and already had a bullet in his right arm. And it was
not he who killed Valance anyway. Now, in the case of Valance, we know
why the speech is made. The man doing it was hoping for political
favours. But in this case, why are Poynder and Esposito found riding
such strange hobby horses?

jcg
-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon 

Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le mercredi 30 décembre 2015 à 10:24 +, David Prosser a écrit :

> 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 
> 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

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Heather Morrison]

A movement is not the same as an organisation. Large movements that cross 
national boundaries and/or sectors of necessity involve a great many different 
groups and individuals. The environmental movement of the past few decades is a 
good case study. There is a common overall goal, but progress is made by many 
different groups and individuals pursuing different sub-goals (limit climate 
change, climate justice, fight pollution), often using different methods. 
Sometimes groups split due to differences in focus or approach, but still see 
themselves as part of a global environmental movement.

It is in this sense that I argue that there is a global open access movement, 
and further that it would be helpful to understand that some diversity within 
the overall movement is likely necessary and healthy, so that groups and 
individuals can be more effective in their own areas or spheres. There are ways 
that actors in a large umbrella movement can work to support each other through 
networks while respecting diversity and autonomy.

Keck and Sikkink wrote a book on transnational activists networks is useful 
reading for OA advocacy strategy. Unfortunately this book is not OA (on the top 
of my wish list for books to unglue). They present several case studies of 
effective movements (including human rights - anti-slavery and the 
environmental movement), and analysis of what made the movements effective (eg 
information sharing, using the leverage of groups with power to support the 
powerless).

best,

Heather

On Dec 31, 2015, at 7:02 AM, "Velterop" 
> wrote:

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 

[GOAL] "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Stevan Harnad]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Richard Poynder  wrote:

[1|no official OA organisation was ever created in order to reach
> democratic consensus on a coherent and coordinated set of policies and
> solutions.
>
[2]That is why OA advocates... have spent the last 13 years arguing with
> one another.
>
[3] And that is why governments and research funders are now taking charge
> and coming up with solutions that will likely prove less than optimal.
>
[4] open access should be viewed as a prelude to a much wider reform


1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --  though there are plenty
of confident (and competing) diagnoses. There have been plenty of OA
organizations, but no consensus. If someone knows how an "official
organization" can solve this problem then I can think of some far more
pressing problems -- like poverty, disease, war, racism, cruelty to animals
-- that I'd like to see the solution applied to.

2. OA advocates are a small minority in the scholarly/scientific world. As
to why they disagree, see above.

3. Governments and research funders (and universities) are organizations
too. None of them is universal or omnipotent, hence in a position to "take
charge.". Nor have they reached a consensus. Some of their tentatives (the
UK's Finch Fiasco, the Netherlands Dekker Debacle) have been less promising
than others (the UK's HEFCE/REF Policy, Belgium's FNR Policy) and some are
still uncertain (the US OSTP Policy).

4. Let's settle for universal OA before demanding "much wider reform." (13
years' wait for just OA seems long enough already without insisting on
conquering poverty too...)

Stevan Harnad


> *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 

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[brentier]

I am sure Elsevier, Wiley, Springer and the like are having great fun seeing 
membres of the Open Access community rip each other apart: 
1) those who have always tried to promote a healthy and moral alternative to 
what has become of the scholarly publication process in the 4 or 5 last decades;
2) those who are suspecting group (1) of trying to operate strange and secret 
maneuvers in ordre to take who-knows-which powers and to rule the world of 
research communication... 
Not just funny. Sad. 

As a member of group (1), I must admit that I don't see what kind of personal 
benefit I, or any of us could seek by defending the cause of OA. To me, there 
is  on l'y one giant potentially collective benefit : a more efficient, more 
fluid transmission of knowledge, free of charge and accessible for all and 
everywhere on the planet. 

Jumping at each others' throats is taking both our attention and energy away 
from the real combat, which must be focused on the mechanisms installed [indeed 
- with the agreement of many of our colleagues (I wouldn't say complicity, it 
is a false interpretation)] and organised in such a way that they generate 
enormous and nowadays disproportionate amounts of money at the expense of 
research funds.

Please, let's come back to our senses and let's unite. 

If we want to convince researchers, reviewers, finders, academic leaders and 
staff, etc. to develop new paradigms of knowledge transmission, sharing and 
interaction, let's work at it !

And please, let's gather and make public as many facts as possible.  A an 
example, see data and graph on my blog :
https://bernardrentier.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/denouncing-the-imposter-factor/
Data like these are needed to give corpus to our arguments.

On this, I wish you all an excellent 2016, which can only be better than 2015...
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Graham Triggs]

> On 31 Dec 2015, at 15:59, Thomas Krichel  wrote:
> 
>  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
>  And as long as they do, OA remains editable.


With the talk of flipping journals, and where libraries should be allocating 
their funds, maybe it’s worth reflecting on two years of operation for SCOAP3:

https://indico.cern.ch/event/461709/contribution/9/attachments/1195643/1737390/AK_SCOAP3_DK_Librarians_Presentation_Nov2015.pdf

G
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Two points:

1. Confidentiality about who says what may be in order (on a case by
case basis) for frank discussions; confidentiality about financial
outcomes when public money is involved is simply unacceptable.

2. How people are selected, come forward, become leaders, etc. are
complex questions. But how do you deal with representing "millions of
authors" ? There is no parliament of science that I know of, and no
election process exists on a world scale.  And the OA community does not
coincide with the researcher community (alas).

-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon 

Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le mercredi 30 décembre 2015 à 17:07 +, Heather Morrison a écrit :
> Thank you for raising the issue of secrecy in approach. It strikes me
> that this is an appropriate critical question for the open access
> movement. 
> 
> 
> Some thoughts follow. I was not invited to the conference, but have
> mixed feelings. On the plus side, getting together those who pay for
> subscriptions to figure out how to flip journals to OA strikes me as a
> very healthy development, and having served as a consortial negotiator
> in the past I understand the importance of confidentiality to
> facilitate frank discussions. 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if we agree on the principle of openness and
> transparency in government, eg govt representatives and staff have an
> obligation to publicly reveal their meetings, campaign contributions,
> etc., why would this principle not also apply to people who work for
> institutions involved in spending public money (presuming this applies
> to the organizers and attendees of this event)?
> 
> 
> From a strategic perspective, those who organize and/or attend an
> event like this might want to consider the impact on those not
> invited. If the attendance list was about 100 people, and there are
> over 10,000 fully OA journals, thousands of repositories and millions
> of authors who have chosen to make their work open access, as well as
> many individual OA advocates, one can conclude that well over 99% of
> the open access movement was excluded from this event. When my
> government behaves in this fashion (eg secretive trade treaty
> negotiations), I openly condemn such practices as un-democratic. I
> cannot speak for anyone else, but note that my immediate reaction is
> distrust, to assume that the reason for not allowing me to participate
> or even know what is going on is to force changes that my government
> knows I would oppose with a transparent approach. 
> 
> 
> Finally, limiting discussions to a few people seems highly likely to
> limit the ideas and perspectives considered. 
> 
> 
> In summary, while overall I am inclined to see this initiative as a
> positive step and sympathize with the need for confidentiality for
> frank discussions, I think this is an opportune moment for the OA
> movement to reconsider our commitment to open in the senses of
> transparency and inclusion.
> 
> 
> Happy holidays!
> 
> 
> Heather Morrison
> 
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:19 AM, "Richard Poynder"
>  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] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

I agree with Stevan Harnad's message where the following statement was
included:

(3) if funders and institutions simply "leave it to us" [publishers] to
manage a "gradual transition" (certainly not a "flip." which publishers
know full well would be highly unstable and impermanent, and would
quickly transform into a "flop" because of institutional, funder and
national defections)

Imagine, back in 1475 or so, a bunch of scriptoria saying: leave this
move to print to us... And then imagine the result!

:-)

"Kind regards"

jcg

Jean-Claude Guédon 

Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le mercredi 30 décembre 2015 à 08:34 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

> (3) if funders and institutions simply "leave it to us" [publishers]
> to manage a "gradual transition" (certainly not a "flip." which
> publishers know full well would be highly unstable and impermanent,
> and would quickly transform into a "flop" because of institutional,
> funder and national defections)

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Thomas Krichel]

  Stevan Harnad writes

> 1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
> optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --

  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
  And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.


-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Stevan Harnad]

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Thomas Krichel  wrote:
> 
>  Stevan Harnad writes
> 
>> 1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
>> optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --
> 
>  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
>  And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.

That’s about as useful as saying that "I know why there is poverty:
because the rich are rich and the poor are poor."

Not only is it not possible to treat “libraries” as if they were a monolith
any more than it is possible to treat “authors” as a monolith, 
but it is completely out of the question for a university library
to cancel subscriptions while its users have no other means to
access that content. 

(Please don’t reply that they do cancel what they cannot afford: that is 
not relevant. Libraries subscribe to as much content that their users need 
as they can afford to subscribe to.)

The only way to make subscriptions cancellable is to first mandate 
and provide (universal — not just local) Green OA 
.

SH

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] December 2015 Dramatic Growth of Open Access

[Heather Morrison]

This concludes yet another amazing year of growth for open access. 

Highlights

DOAJ robust growth, both in terms of number of titles added and searchable 
articles, is back on track in spite of DOAJ's new get-tough inclusion policy. 
The Bielefeld Academic Search Engine's addition of over 15 million documents 
and 671 content providers in 2015 for over 84 million documents and close to 
4,000 content providers is a rough-but-persuasive indication of the health of 
the open access repository movement. Although BASE repositories include both 
non-OA and OA materials, the over 3.7 million free fulltext documents now 
available via PubMedCentral alone is just one indication of the robust growth 
of OA via archives. SCOAP3 takes the prize for highest growth by percentage in 
2015, more than doubling in content, closely followed by the Directory of Open 
Access Books (both for books and publishers). Internet Archive and the Open 
Library have opened up access to 8.8 million texts; perhaps even more 
impressive is that more than 8 million are fully accessible and in the public 
domain.

For details and charts, see The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2015/12/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-december.html

Raw data can be downloaded from the Dramatic Growth of Open Access Dataverse:
http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/dgoa

Thank you to everyone who is making all of this happen. I have only one 
recommended resolution for 2016: keep up the good work!

Happy New Year!

-- 
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal