Forgive me for interrupting, but does it really matter if the reasons for
self-archiving are primary or secondary? Doing the right thing for the
"wrong" reasons is still the right thing. Wouldn't you say that applies
in this case?
Regards,
Lesley
David Goodman wrote:
We have failed altogether in persuading researchers to
self-archive in order
- to maximize research impact
- by maximizing research access
Presumably they are satisfied with the research impact and access they
already have. I may not think this good reasoning, but it has proved
to be the majority view, at least in the biomedical sciences.
If Stevan and the rest of us
have not convinced them by now. we never will:
"Now 'aw is done, that men can do, and aw' is done in vain"
Stevan is probably right that the researchers will not accept
the "secondary" arguments either. Resorting to mandates is an
admission of failure to convince the scientists themselves.
Even if we cannot convince them, we can try to compel them.
But if legislators and funders do compel them, it will be for the
reasons some of us call "secondary," which are primary to most
people who are not professional scentists.
Like it or not, we would be more realistic to
look more carefully and without condescension at the arguments
those other than authors think important.
Dismissing the importance of the "secondary" reasons is the one thing
we can do which will be the most harmful to green OA == or
to OA altogether. There are others too who minimize these arguments:
they're the opponents of OA, who are attentive to what might assist them.
>From their postings, they rejoice when we argue their side of the case.
Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
and formerly
Princeton University Library
dgoodman_at_liu.edu
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: guedon <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca>
Date: Saturday, April 29, 2006 10:10 am
Subject: Re: Ian Gibson on open access
All these are Harnadian assertions, not proofs.
Let me take the points one by one:
1. I agree with point one if we replace "research-users" simply by
"users".
2. I would rephrase this point as follows: "Not all researchers
will be
persuaded to self-archive... etc. ; however, some will (and that will
increase the number of allies). "This comes with the territory" may
meanthe same thing, but in too ambiguous a fashion to satisfy me;
3. I would rephrase this point exactly like 2.
4. Idem.
5. Idem.
6. Idem.
I begin to understand what Stevan Harnad's basic mistake is: he
confusessome ideal-typic notion of the researcher, whatever that
may be, with
the variegated behaviour of researchers. perhaps a bit of classic
socialscience readings, such as Max Weber would help...
OA requires political changes in various kinds of institutions. To
achieve political change, alliances are needed, not exclusions.
But thank you all the same as it allows to put the differences between
us at their exact level: as all can see, it would take Stevan Harnad
very little to agree with me; he would just have to abandon some
idealized version of "the researcher" and simply accept that they
form a
motley crew.
Best,
jc
Le samedi 29 avril 2006 à 05:32 +0100, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
See:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-
archiving_files/Slide0008.gif>
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0009.gif
Slide 8:
The objective of open-access self-archiving (and what will persuade
researchers to provide it):
- is not to quarrel with, ruin or replace journals,
publishers or peer
review (at all) (Self-archiving is a supplement to, not a
substitute> for journal publication; it is done for the sake of
providing access
to all would-be research-users worldwide whose institutions
cannot> afford the publisher's official version.)
- nor will researchers be persuaded to self-archive for the sake
of providing access to teachers - students - the general public
(and yet that will come with the territory...)
- nor will researchers be persuaded to self-archive for the sake
of providing access to the Developing World (and yet that
will come
with the territory...)
- nor will researchers be persuaded to self-archive for the
sake of
providing access to medical information for tax-payers (and
yet that
will come with the territory...)
- nor will researchers be persuaded to self-archive for the sake
of making all knowledge/information free (and yet some of
that will
come with the territory...)
- nor will researchers be persuaded to self-archive for the
sake of
relieving the budgetary problems of libraries (and yet some
relief> for access needs that exceed the budget will come with
the territory...)
Slide 9:
The objective of open-access (and what will persuade researchers
to self-archive,
and also persuade their institutions and funders to mandate it) is:
- to maximize research impact
- by maximizing research access
Stevan Harnad
Received on Sun Apr 30 2006 - 18:41:59 BST
