[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
My impression is that we are now very close to each other...
Le dimanche 05 novembre 2006 à 18:28 +0000, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
On Sun, 5 Nov 2006, Jean-Claude Guedon wrote:
> If self-archiving mandates generalize sufficiently (including with an
> implementation policy with teeth), Stevan is right. But that is exactly
> the question. For the moment, they do not...
Sale, Arthur (2006) The Acquisition of Open Access Research
Articles. First Monday 11(10) October: Three repositories with
variants of a mandatory deposit policy are analyzed to see when
researchers deposit their articles. It takes several years for a
mandatory policy to be institutionalized and routinized, but once
it has been, authors overwhelmingly deposit well before six months
after publication date. The OA mantra of "deposit now, set open access
when feasible" is shown to be not only reasonable, but fitting what
researchers actually do.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_10/sale/index.html
This agrees with what is quoted above.
Sale, Arthur (2006) Comparison of content policies for institutional
repositories in Australia. First Monday 11(4) April: An analysis of
seven Australian universities shows that a requirement to deposit
research output into a repository coupled with effective author
support policies works in Australia and delivers high levels of
content. Voluntary deposit policies do not, regardless of any author
support by the university. This is consistent with international data.
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_4/sale/index.html
No problem with this either.
Yeomans, J. (2006) CERN's Open Access E-print Coverage in 2006 :
Three Quarters Full and Counting. Libraries Webzine 12 March:
CERN's open access e-print repository, CERN Document Server
(CDS), contains open access full-text copies of nearly
three quarters of its own recently-authored documents....
http://library.cern.ch/HEPLW/12/papers/2/
Again, no quarrel with Joanne's results. I retain from all this that
mandating works, but "it takes several years"... for each mandating
policy. This does not look all than much easier than converting journals
to OA.
> > SH:
> > The potential mandator of OA self-archiving is the research
> > community itself -- research funders and institutions -- not
> > the publishers who oppose OA.
>
> You forget one other group that may not go along as easily
> [with self-archiving mandates]: learned societies and scientific
> associations.
They are publishers. (And how could I forget?)
They are not just publishers. They are also researchers organized in some
sort of political body to support and defend researchers within a given
country or group of countries.
Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005)
Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence
and Fruitful Collaboration.
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/
> The recent battles in anthropology about OA and mandating shows again
> the importance of these associations
Harnad, S. (2006) Anthropomorphic Tail Wags Anthropological Dog.
Open Access Archivangelism. November:
The American Anthropological Association (AAA) has disbanded its
"AnthroSource Steering Committee" because it had supported the Federal
Research Public Access Act (FRPAA). Hardly a surprising outcome:
Like the Royal Society and many other learned societies, the AAA,
has a strong publishing tail that manages to wag the AAA dog. And
that tail does not wag the AAA in the interests of anthropological
research or researchers. The resolution of this (undeniable) conflict
of interest between researchers and their learned societies is very
simple: It will not be their learned societies who ensure that Open
Access is provided, free for all, but their institutions and funders,
by mandating it, just as the FRPAA proposes to do (but with a few
of the policy parameters fine-tuned to optimize them).
http://openaccess.eprints.or1
But, once more, the people deciding all this were not publishers. They
were researchers acting fromn within the logic of a learned society. That
too is part of the researcher landscape.
Let me add to conclude that Peter Suber's recent summary of this debate
in his blog (
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html ) appears to
me perfectly good and I agree with it. As sual, Peter's limpid language
has restored clarity wherever I may have injected some degree of
murkiness and I thank him for this.
Jean-Claude Guédon
g/index.php?/archives/156-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
--
Dr. Jean-Claude Guédon
Dept. of Comparative Literature
University of montreal
PO Box 6128, Downtown Branch
Montreal, QC H3C 3J7
Canada
Received on Mon Nov 06 2006 - 11:00:27 GMT