Dear Stevan,
Maybe the problem is reality.
Maybe scientists is fighting for their freedom.
Maybe scientists feel that Your alternative is taken that freedom from
them.
Maybe their is something wrong when you make it compulsary.
In Russia under the Stalin rule many things were compulsory to force
people into the communist heaven.
Maybe scientists are sceptical when their employer makes something
compulsary.
Scientists just trust other scientists. That is the problem with the green
way.
Sincerely Yours
Jan
Jan Szczepanski
Frste bibliotekarie
Goteborgs universitetsbibliotek
Box 222
SE 405 30 Goteborg, SWEDEN
Tel: +46 31 773 1164 Fax: +46 31 163797
E-mail: Jan.Szczepanski_at_ub.gu.se
>Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>University Open Access (OA) Resolutions, even toothless, purely abstract
>ones with no concrete policy proposals, are better than no University OA
>Resolutions, one would have thought, just as some sort of NIH OA Policy is
>better than none (one would have thought).
>
> "Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy!"
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4307.html
>
>But, we must ask ourselves, is this really true, at a time when 100% OA is
>fully within reach and already long overdue, with research access, usage,
>impact and progress continuing to be needlessly lost, the loss compounded
>daily, weekly, monthly, as we continue making false starts that miss the
>point and keep heading us off in the wrong directions (and mostly no
>direction at all)?
[SNIP]
>What was missing from both was the core component of a targeted university
>OA policy, the only component with the capacity to move universities to
>100% OA rather than continuing to drift aimlessly, as they do now.
>
>Of all the US University Statements and Resolutions, the only one that
>does contain this all-important component (albeit in a needlessly
>circuitous and somewhat hobbled form, because the part in square brackets
>is at least 92% superfluous -- http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php) is that
>of the University of Kansas: [SNIP]
>
>All the rest of the US university statements and resolutions so far fail
>to mention self-archiving at all, going on and on instead about {3} the
>high costs of journals, about {4} the (putative) need to reform copyright
>and retain ownership, and about {5} the (putative) need to favor
>"alternative publication venues" (by which is meant OA journals), not only
>by helping to fund them (i.e., {2} above), but even by more favorably
>evaluating the work that appears in them; and of course there is much
>abstract and ideological praise for {6} the abstract principle of free(r)
>access.
[SNIP]
>The only thing universities need to do in order to make the content that
>they themselves already provide openly accessible is to keep on publishing
>it in journals exactly as they always have done, but in addition, to make
>an online copy of it openly accessible to all would-be users webwide who
>cannot afford the official published version -- by self-archiving a
>supplementary draft of every published article in the university's own OA
>eprint archive.
>
>With 92% of journals having already given their green light to university
>self-archiving it is nothing short of absurd to keep harping on retaining
>copyright {4} and favoring "alternative venues" {5} instead of simply
>adopting a policy of self-archiving all university journal article output:
>
> http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
[SNIP]
>Let us hope that other universities (US and non-US) as well as research
>institutions and research funders world-wide will not copy/clone diffuse
>and directionless statements/resolutions such as Columbia's and Berkeley's
>but instead include the critical concrete component {1} that will convey
>us all at long last to the optimal and inevitable (and long overdue)
>outcome for research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, and
>their funders' funders, the tax-paying public: 100% OA
>
>Stevan Harnad
Received on Thu May 05 2005 - 03:58:51 BST