Re: Open Letter about OA to the Royal Society by Fellows of the Royal Society

From: Lesley Perkins <lesleyperkins_at_TELUS.NET>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:06:25 -0800

Stevan,

I like the way you think, write, and argue, even if your style can be
just a wee bit sarcastic (I hope I never get on your bad side!!).

I am a newly minted librarian (on her second career), and a very strong
supporter and advocate of OA, doing what I can to advance the cause
through making presentations, writing articles, and blogging (I work on
OA Librarian in collaboration with a group of academic librarians).
However, as a relative newcomer to the whole OA debate, I find that the
arguments sometimes get rather overly complicated and convoluted, and I
find myself questioning the logic of OA "opponents" and the nuances and
specific little details that they take issue with (although I can kind of
understand why some publishers have fears of subscription loss and
eventual financial ruin).

Those concerns aside, I believe that open access is a GOOD THING that
will ultimately benefit EVERYONE, and it seems to me that the biggest
challenge is breaking down the resistance to OA publishing among the
academic researchers and authors themselves.

So, I put this question out to you, Stevan, and to the listerv:

What do you say, or do, or demonstrate, to academic researchers to
convince them that publishing their articles in an open access venue is a
good and smart thing to do, not only for them (and their career), but
also for anyone else who has an interest in reading their articles?

Specific examples of things you've tried that seemed to "get through"
would be helpful. For example, do you use charts, statistics, and
diagrams? or do you hold workshops, seminars, instructional sessions on
how an IR or an OA journal works?

Respectfully yours,
Lesley Perkins


Stevan Harnad wrote:

 On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Barry Mahon wrote:

  

 Having just returned from the Online meeting in London I have the
impression that "open" availability of publications whether gold,
green, or any other colour or style is considered by most people as
"just another model for publishing"
    

 "Most people" haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about when
it comes to OA, green or gold, and this has been demonstrated so many
times by now that it is surprising that anyone would cite "most people"
as the authoritative source as to what does and does not make sense...

  

 Seems to me to be an eminently sensible opinion.
    

 I regret that I cannot share that opinion...

  

 In fact many people I spoke to were of the opinion that writing and
publishing were now part of a process and not standalone actions
    

 Duly noted, for the next Gallup poll on people's opinions. But now
perhaps we should focus instead on what actually is the case, logically
and empirically, rather than what many people opine to be the case...

  

 - except perhaps where the quality of the research is assessed on the basis
of publications produced.
    

 Whoops! Apparently it has even dawned on "most people" that perhaps --
just perhaps -- what an academic Curriculum Vitae counts as "publications"
under the CV category "Published Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles" just
might -- just might -- have something to do with what is actually meant by
"publications" and "publishing" in this discussion of OA: that possibly --
just possibly -- vanity self-publishing on the web is *not* what the RCUK
self-archiving policy is mandating, and that what is to be self-archived
might perhaps instead be the published peer-reviewed journal articles
that the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) counts and evaluates,
that research-impact citation-counts count, that tenure/promotion
committees reward, and that currently constitute the building blocks
out of which the edifice of research knowledge is built.

So maybe the RCUK policy is not, after all, about changing the "publishing
system," as the Royal Society's position statement on the RCUK proposal
opined, but simply, as it states, about maximising access, usage and
impact for the published journal articles reporting the research that
the RCUK funds.

Stevan Harnad


  
Received on Wed Dec 07 2005 - 19:31:24 GMT