Ian
Why do we need more research? The JISC Disciplinary Differences Report
(undertaken by Rightscom
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Disciplinary%20Differences%20and%20Nee
s.doc) surveyed attitudes of UK researchers. The survey put the
statement:
‘Research funding bodies should mandate all researchers to deposit
their results in open archives’. Seventy-four percent of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed.
The statement:
‘Scholarly journals should be open access and free to the reader,
with institutions and funding bodies paying the costs of publication for
authors’
received agreement or strong agreement from 74% of respondents.
The RCUK policy would mandate deposit – which has majority support
from researchers – and make funds available for publication in open
access journals – which, again, has majority support from
researchers. The policy also has the strong support of the UK
universities. It would appear that the publishers are the only
stakeholders who object.
David
(PS Bravo, by the way, for your attempt to tar open access supporters
with the brush of both Stalinism and evangelism. A heady combination!)
David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail: david.prosser_at_bodley.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 1865 277 614
Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888
http://www.sparceurope.org
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On
Behalf Of Iain Stevenson
Sent: 24 November 2005 12:50
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: royal society statement on OA.
On the contrary, is not what the Royal Society saying in its statement is
that
we need more research about what researchers actually want before OA and
repositories become standard policy for research communication? In so
doing,
it is upholding its proud history of seeking evidence and drawing
conclusions
from research rather than jumping on bandwagons. There has not been
enough
research to show what researchers actually want and that which has been
done,
notably the work of Rowlands et al at CIBER, seems to show that
researchers are
hazy and confused about OA and the benefits of self-archiving and
institutional
repositories over conventional publishing. I for one am profoundly
depressed
that a body that represennts UK research funders like RCUK can take the
Stalinist view embodied in its statements which seems to be based much
more in
dirigiste managerialism than good research about demand and benefits. Or
is it
too much to expect research councils to commission someresearch?
Earlier this week I attended an invitation only conference sponsored by
the
British Department of Trade and Industry about Research Communication
that had
the laudable aim of bringing together stakeholders in the research
communication process--funders, information managers, publishers and
researchers to discuss what was needed. However, I was deeply disturbed
to
hear a succession of funders and information managers affirm their faith
in OA
and repositories as the way forward without--when pressed--having any
evidence
that this is what the research community (and let us not forget that
funders
and information managers exist to support the research enterprise not the
other
way about) actually want. Evangelism and blind faith can to be sure
result
in colourful ceremony and impressive liturgy but if the congregation (the
researchers) don't know what is going on, it is only empty rhetroic. At
the
conference, it was significant that the researchers were conspicuous by
their
absence, despite having been invited. To my mind, this is 'the dog in
the
night time' (reference 'Silver Blaze' to non-Sherlockians): they weren't
there
because it doesn't matter to them and it wont matter to them until there
is
real research to show the benefits. It is an affront to the entire
research
community that a body
like RCUK can draw conclusions and determine policy before even basic
research
about demand and benefits has been conducted. Or
is it normal for the verdict to be reached before the trial has been
conducted?
Oh, and by the way, can I nail the canard that the Royal Society
published the
world's second scientific journal? Of course Phil. Trans. holds that
distinction but it was published as a commercial venture by Henry
Oldenberg,
one of those despised publishers who stand in the way of progress. As
indeed
was Journal des Scavans, the earliest scientific journal.
Professor Iain Stevenson
Professor of Publishing Studies
City University London.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Received on Thu Nov 24 2005 - 16:22:32 GMT