Stevan Harnad wrote:
> The press just keeps on missing the mark!
The mark is Open Access: reaching the maximum effectiveness (scientific
and societal impact) of the research literature possible with the
technology available. The press is not missing that mark.
Which tactical or strategic method is being used to get to Open Access is
perhaps a secondary mark, not of interest to the press.
The target is Open Access, whichever arrows we use, even if the press is
confused about the colour of the arrows' vanes. What's important is that
they do not lose sight of the target.
Jan Velterop
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> The press just keeps on missing the mark!
>
> "American and British Lawmakers Endorse Open-Access Publishing"
> Andrea Foster and Lila Guterman
> Chronicle of Higher Education, July 30, 2004
> http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i47/47a01302.htm
>
> > "In a double coup for the open-access movement this month,
> > committees of the U.S. Congress and British Parliament recommended
> > that papers resulting from government-financed research be made
> > available free. The committees recommended that the U.S. and British
> > governments require researchers to deposit in free, online archives
> > any articles that arise from research sponsored, respectively,
> > by the National Institutes of Health and any British agency.
>
> So far, so good. That part was correct. But then:
>
> > The British committee further recommended that journal publishers
> > adopt an open-access model in which authors would pay to publish
> > and subscription fees would be eliminated. Both governments are
> > expected to act on the committees' recommendations this year."
>
> No, the British committee did not recommend that; on the contrary, they
> explicitly refrained from recommending it and recommended only further
> experimentation with it, along with funding to help pay
> author-institutions costs for OA Publishing.
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cms
ctech/399/39903.htm
Nor is the title of the story correct:
"American and British Lawmakers Endorse Open-Access Publishing"
"Endorsement" is ambiguous. What, if anything, both the Americans and the
British endorsed was Open Access (OA), not OA Publishing. They recommended
mandating OA *Provision* through author/institution self-archiving of
published articles (the "green" road to OA), not OA Publishing (the golden
road to OA).
Stevan Harnad
Received on Tue Jul 27 2004 - 10:59:57 BST