Heather
Let's by all means use whatever we have to in order to get mandates in place
and convince senior executives to pass the policies, but also let us not
fool ourselves that these same strategies will work with the authors. All
the evidence is that they don't. There is absolutely no evidence that they
have ever worked in anything other than a very minor way.
I'm sorry to have to belabour the point but all the wonderful proselytizing
that you can think of makes no difference at all to non-participants. It
runs off like water off a duck's back.
Get the mandate by fair means or foul. Don't waste your institution's time
and money convincing researchers (apart from key decision-makers) until you
have one. Then and only then go for your life and enjoy the plaudits.
Arthur Sale
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
> Sent: Monday, 1 May 2006 8:54 AM
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: Ian Gibson on open access
>
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:31:09 -0700 Lesley Perkins wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> John Willinsky = and Lesley - are definitely on to something, in my
opinion.
> For a researcher, having their work showcased in this way provides a very
> concrete illustration of how self-archiving can increase impact (in this
> case, certainly locally).
>
> There are secondary reasons for building and filling institutional open
> access archives that fulfill important needs for the university. For
> example, a full OA institutional repository makes it possible to showcase
> the work of a leading-edge research university. In Canada, a local
> magazine, MacLean's, provides a comparison of universities every year on a
> number of factors. It is not hard to see the open access archives being
> added to the list - a real incentive for the research producers to mandate
> deposit, and ensure their OA archives get filled.
>
> Full OA archives will also help such universities to attract the best
> faculty, students, and donors. For the administrators who need to be
> involved in any mandate, these are important considerations. In addition,
> the benefits of the research to the general public can be helpful to
ensure
> taxpayer support for the university.
>
> This is a good reason for the research funder, also, to mandate OA - not
> only does it maximize the benefits of the funded research, ready
> availability of the research results to the general public can only help
to
> ensure taxpayer support for the funding of research.
>
> In other words, helping universities to see these secondary benefits
should
> be most helpful in convincing universities to adopt the needed mandates.
As
> Jean Claude Guedon points out, to achieve change we need to develop
> alliances - to develop alliances, we need to think about what the needs of
> our potential allies are, not only what we see as priorities.
>
> Heather Morrison
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
Received on Mon May 01 2006 - 12:10:39 BST