Re: Ian Gibson on open access

From: guedon <jean.claude.guedon_at_umontreal.ca>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 21:50:50 -0400

    [ 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. ]

No one, so far as I know, disputes what Arthur says. Of course, the
mandate is important.

I repeat (but repeating is a hallmark of this list, it seems to me): OF
COURSE, THE MANDATE IS IMPORTANT.

All I have been arguing is against this particular frame of mind that
seems to say that mandating is so important as to make everything else
irrelevant.

Best,

jcg


Le lundi 01 mai 2006 à 09:35 +1000, Arthur Sale a écrit :
> Lesley
>
>
>
> Yes it will help, as do all supply-side interventions. For example,
> see our ego-soothing (and useful) statistics generated on papers in
> our repository
> http://eprints.comp.utas.edu.au:81/es/index.php?action=show_detail_date;range=4w (also used in New Zealand, South Africa and the USA).
>
>
>
> However, all such interventions have but a minor effect, unless
> accompanied by a mandate. They simply don^^t work on non-participants.
> I have evidence of this in Australia ^^ for example the University of
> Queensland has pulled out every voluntary stop and are still at 15% or
> less of their research output.
>
>
>
> However, if you have a mandate, the increasing number of depositors
> suddenly like to find lots of reasons to like what they are doing.
> This is our experience in Australia, in the Queensland University of
> Technology. See
> http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_4/sale/index.html.
>
>
>
> So, the message remains as it has for several years: Each university
> should have a mandatory deposit policy (aka requirement to deposit) as
> the top priority. Every effort should be made to put this into place
> first. Whether the deposit is open access or restricted access can be
> left to the researcher or the library to decide. Secondly, once you
> have such a requirement and not before, put effort into making the
> researchers like doing it. It pays off in making the transition to
> 100% deposit faster. I am doing work on this transition now (as yet
> unpublished).
>
>
>
> Arthur Sale
>
> Professor of Computing (Research)
>
> University of Tasmania
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
> On Behalf Of Lesley Perkins
> Sent: Monday, 1 May 2006 4:31 AM
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Ian Gibson on open
> access (fwd)
>
>
>
>
> I agree completely! (I think!)
>
> Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not the least bit interested in
> quibbling about primary vs. secondary reasons, or ideological
> crusading. I'm a practical librarian. It seems to me the focus should
> be on what works. If you say that demonstrating the impact factor will
> help, I will certainly emphasize that in my future presentations.
>
> But it also seems to me that John Willinsky may be on to something
> when he says we should be appealing to researchers' egos, by
> showcasing their articles (deposited in IRs) in special sections on
> university, and university library, homepages (and, as Peter Suber has
> pointed out, on sites like Cream of Science.) If that strategy works,
> then maybe a policy that mandate self-archiving will be a much easier
> pill for researchers to swallow.
>
> Regards,
> Lesley
>
> Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Lesley Perkins wrote:
>
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> It would perhaps not matter if people actually *were* self-archiving --
> and mandating self-archiving -- for secondary or wrong reasons.
>
> But the fact is that only 15% of papers are as yet being spontaneously
> self-archived *at all*. And among the reasons why self-archiving is not
> yet being done or mandated nearly enough is that secondary and wrong
> reasons for self-archiving, or for mandating self-archiving, are simply
> not compelling enough to make it happen.
>
> Researchers will not self-archive -- and their universities will not
> require them to self-archive their -- in order to make their papers freely
> accessible to the general public. That is just too absurd. Both
> universities and their researchers know perfectly well that most of
> their specialized research papers are of no absolutely no direct interest
> to the general public. Hence public access to them would be a ludicrous
> (and readily defeasible) reason for requiring researchers to take the trouble
> to self-archive them (little trouble though that is).
>
> In contrast, both universities and their researchers know that
> researchers' income and funding depends to a large on their research
> impact. So demonstrating the strong and dramatic causal connection
> between self-archiving and research impact *is* a compelling reason --
> indeed *the* compelling reason -- for mandating it.
>
> It is this strong and compelling causal connection between self-archiving
> and research impact -- well known to this Forum, but still too little known
> to researchers and their employers and funders -- that needs to be
> conveyed far more widely than this Forum, if we are to reach the 100%
> OA that is already so long overdue.
>
> Trading instead in secondary or wrong reasons is a good way to continue
> ideological crusading if one feels one has a lot of time on one's hands
> and has an appetite for that sort of thing, but it does not get much done.
>
> I might add that -- however much it may preoccupy and exercise the
> library community -- appeals to remedy the journal pricing/affordability
> crisis will also fail to induce researchers to self-archive. Indeed,
> any user-end rationale will fail. The appeal has to be to the *author*
> as author -- not to the author as user (for authors already have the use of
> their own papers). That means the primary (and secondary, and tertiary)
> reason for self-archiving has to be based on the self-interest of the
> author and his institution. And that means the impact of their (joint)
> research output.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
Received on Mon May 01 2006 - 03:29:20 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:19 GMT