Stevan Harnads 5 messages are very important and well well pointed,
except for no 5, Developing countries.
I strongly support Jan Veltrops comment to this point.
The needs for scientific literature to researchers and others in
developing countries are very important, not at least in a global
perpective of research challenges.
1. In health this is clearly stated by WHO and others what is called
the 90/10 dilemma: ("only about 10% of funding is targeted to the
diseases which account for 90% of the global disease
burden.") also addressing the fact that to solve the most important
global health problems, researchers and universities in the developing
part of the world have to be partners, and and active users
of international research publications. The NIH and PLoS contribution to
this agenda setting has been good.
2. This 90/10 problem, however, is valid also in all other fields of
research (technology, biodiversity, social science and so on).
3. If the international research community do not take the consequences
of this global reality, which includes the publication strategy, we
are supporting the present ACADEMIC APARTEID. Availability of research
publications as OPEN ACESS, as a global public good is the most
important tool to address and solve the important global and
poverty related issues..
5. Mandatory self archiving is the most important tool for this goal,
--also for the "book writing" researchers.
I am professor in International health, University of Bergen, Norway,
and has worked in this field since last 30 years.
Presently I am leader of a research programme Nile Basin Research
programme (for all the 10 Nile countries)
In all the institutions we are working with, the most fundamental problem
is lack of access to research publications.
Stevan, this is a big and fundamental global problem.
I am also member of the Working group of Open Access in the EUA,
European University Association, I am happy to say that it is a rapidly
increaseing awareness in this field in Europe now.
Best regards
Rune Nilsen
Professor Rune Nilsen
Professor International Health
Director Nile Basin Research Programme (NBRP)
University of Bergen
POB 7800, 5020 Bergen
Norway
www.nile.uib.no
Teleph: +4741479217
.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of Velterop, Jan, Springer UK
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 3:58 PM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Sense Versus Sensationalism: Pitting Petitions Against
Pit-Bulls
(1) The "open access movement" is not the "open access journal
movement", but that doesn't mean there isn't something that can be
described as an "open access journal movement" among publishers and
editors (a growing number of sensible ones offering 'Gold' open
access);
(2) At least one of the two 'Gold' publishing organisations (BMC)
came *before* the BOAI and both BMC and PLoS were constituents of
the BOAI (PLoS was not yet a publisher, but an open access advocacy
group before the BOAI and arguably started the whole movement off);
(3) The need for access to medical literature and in developing
countries is not "just" a small portion of the need for OA, but an
important portion, especially given the fact that a very high
proportion of scientific research is medical, relevant to the
entire world population (not just scientists and medics) and
intellectually accessible to a rather wide range of well-educated
people (again, not just scientists and medics), and a very low
proportion of any research reaches developing countries;
Jan Velterop
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Stevan
Harnad
Sent: Sat 2/10/2007 1:39 PM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Sense Versus Sensationalism: Pitting Petitions Against
Pit-Bulls
Sense Versus Sensationalism: Pitting Petitions Against
Pit-Bulls
A CRITIQUE OF: Goldacre, Ben (2007) Open access and the price
of
knowledge. "Badscience.net" The Guardian, Saturday February 10,
2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,2010036,00.html
http://www.badscience.net/
"Journalists,
like moths and drunks,
seem attracted,
irresistibly,
where the light
shines, not
where the key lies"
(1) The Open Access movement is not the "Open Access Journal
movement."
Converting non-OA journals to OA journals is only one of the two
ways to
make articles OA ("Gold OA"), and the slower, more resistant way.
The
faster, surer way is to convert authors to depositing their own
articles
(published in non-OA journals) on the web to make them OA ("Green
OA").
It is Green OA that can and will be required by researchers'
funding
councils and employers (universities). The research community has
just
signed a petition in support of the European Community's proposal
to
mandate Green OA (20,000 individuals, 1000 institutions):
http://www.ec-petition.eu/
Similar movements are afoot in the US:
http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/frpaa/
(2) It is not "two [Gold] OA publishing organisations" that have
led the
fight for (Gold) OA, but one (Green and Gold) organisation, the one
that
first coined the term OA in 2002: The Budapest Open Access
Initiative:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/
(3) The need for access to "medical literature", and in "developing
countries" is just a small portion of the need for OA, which
concerns
all forms of research, and researchers all over the world.
(4) The primary need for OA is to make research (most of it
specialised
and technical) freely available not only to "part-time tinkering
thinkers, journalists and the public" but to the researchers
worldwide
for whom it was written and who can use and apply it to the benefit
of
the public that paid for it.
(5) To demonize non-OA publisher Reed-Elsevier as the "sponsor of
the
DSEI international arms fair [that] needs police, security, wire
fences,
and the pitbull of PR [Dezenhall] to defend it" is to sink into the
very
same pit-bull tactics. Reed-Elsevier journals are Green on OA: It
is
research funders and universities that now need to mandate Green
OA:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
Journalists and tinkerers should think more carefully before
opining
about OA: Good science needs more sense, not more sensationalism.
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 02:12:03 GMT