On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rune Nilsen wrote:
> Stevan Harnads 5 messages are very important and well well pointed,
> except for no 5, Developing countries.
> I strongly support Jan Velterop's 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
> perspective of research challenges.
Please understand: The rationale for OA is the need for access to the
research literature for *all* researchers who do not have access, not
just those in developing countries. Of course developing-country access
is important. But if it (plus public access to health-related
information) were taken to be the primary rationale for OA, then we
would not have a sufficient case for mandating OA:
To put an end to the pressure for OA, all publishers would need to do
(and it is easy enough to do) is to increase HINARI-like subsidies to
developing countries somewhat, and to release free online that small
subset of biomedical research that could conceivably health-relevant
and of interest to the general public.
That would be the end of the story, if that were all there was to the
rationale for OA. But the dramatically higher usage and impact of OA
articles compared to non-OA articles in the same journals -- plus the
fact that even in the developing world most institutional libraries
can only afford to subscribe to a fraction of the c. 24,000 research
journals that exist -- make it clear that OA is urgently needed for *all*
researchers and not just for researchers in developing countries.
Moreover, OA to research for researchers is a rationale that draws upon
the self-interest of researchers, their institutions and their funders,
because of their common stake in maximising research progress and
impact, whereas a mere appeal for developing-country access would make
OA seem as if it were only a matter of charity -- which it certainly is
not.
> 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.
Rune, we are talking at cross purposes. If I, in the interests of OA to
*all* research for *all* researchers, point out that (1) access to health
research for the general public, and (2) research access for researchers
in developing countries are not sufficiently strong or representative
reasons for mandating OA, it does not mean that (1) and (2) are not
reasons, or not important, or that OA will not provide for them too:
They are simply not enough.
> 2. This 90/10 problem, however, is valid also in all other fields of
> research (technology, biodiversity, social science and so on).
I can't quite see that, but in any case OA is not about funding for
research but about access to research.
> 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 APARTHEID. Availability of
> research publications as OPEN ACCESS, as a global public good is the
> most important tool to address and solve the important global and
> poverty related issues..
I agree with all that, but for OA to mandated, a stronger rationale
is needed, and we have it: to maximise research usage, application,
progress, productivity and impact, we must maximise research access --
for all would-be users, and not only, or primarily, (1) the general public
interested in accessing health-related research, nor only, or primarily,
(2) researchers in developing countries: open access is needed for *all*
researchers, worldwide.
> 5. Mandatory self archiving is the most important tool for this goal,
> --also for the "book writing" researchers.
I am not sure what you mean by "book writing" researchers: I agree, of
course, if you mean those who need access to articles in order to write
books. But if you mean that books should be included among the documents
covered by the self-archiving mandate, then I am afraid this is
premature (if it will ever be possible at all), as books, unlike
articles, are not author give-aways, written solely for the sake of
research impact: Many are written in the hope of royalties. And the
economics of book publication are not the same as those of journal
publication either.
http://cogprints.org/1639/01/resolution.htm#1.1
> 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
> increasing awareness in this field in Europe now.
OA will help, Rune, because the both the need for and the benefits of
providing OA are global too.
Stevan Harnad
Received on Sun Feb 11 2007 - 03:33:59 GMT