[Open-access] new open access initiative

[Mike Taylor]

I very much like all the ideas proposed here, and I think that
reclaiming the term "open access" to mean actually open rather than
whatever is the least the publishers can get away with calling "open"
is important.

My only reservation is that I fear the possibility that starting a new
initiative will further fragment the already fragmented OA landscape
rather than serving as a condensation point for a more unified voice.
(I think of the many attempts to unify document formats by making a
simple metaformat that can be translated into HTML, RTF, etc., with
the inevitable consequence that the new format becomes just one more
format that needs supporting.)

What can we do to avoid this?

-- Mike.



On 28 January 2012 13:39, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi to all,
>
> I would like to start my postings to this list with my view on the need for
> a new OA initiative: purposes tasks, possibilities, branding and other
> topics. I want to stress that all this is open for discussion and represents
> my personal view.
>
> The main reason for founding a new open access initiative is that the OA
> movement is too fragmented to be effective. Equally important is the fact
> that the term Open Access is used by many with quite different meanings: we
> need to reclaim the term  Open Access to mean exclusively  Open access
> according to the definition of the Budapest Convention, as we have discussed
> by previously.
>
> Therefore II like to propose as a first task for the new initiative
> establishing a logo or badge for Open Access: we can give publishers /
> authors the rights to use our OpenAccess Logo/Badge ( as proposed by Mike
> Taylor in the preceding discussion) as certified proof for Open Access for
> given articles.  Establishing ourselves as a certifying organization could
> perhaps serve to generate some modest funding.
>
> To promote open access publishing and draw media attention we will need a
> name , a Logo and a “special” product. The product could be an Open Access
> Index for access to disease information. We can start making and publishing
> an Open Access Index for Malaria with other diseases following suite. In
> parallel with the development of an Open Access to [disease X] information
> Index we can develop ORR’s for the disease. At a later stage we could add
> the Open Access Publisher Index described in the documents form the Dutch
> Malaria Foudation. For a name I suggest that we use Open Access Foundation
> initiative, in anticipation of the founding of an Open Access Foundation
> (see below).
>
> At the same time we should commit ourselves to the building of a community
> of [Disease X] stakeholders (researchers, patient groups and others) and
> offer them a platform for social interaction (discussion, collaboration).
> For this we could (for instance) copy the ResearchGate model. In addition we
> can encourage researchers to deposit their papers with us (as ResearchGate
> users do on their platform). Proceeding in this direction we will hopefully
> find ourselves hosting a number of Circles (of disease interest) and indexed
> open access publications. I am convinced that Open Access and community
> building are both indispensible ingredients for an Open Science Society (
> see e.g. my blog ).
>
> At that stage, or already after establishing  one Circle (malaria) we could
> transform into an Open Access Foundation which acts as Open Access watchdog,
> certifying body for Open Access publications  and social media platform for
> the building of Circles (communities) of malaria researchers + other groups,
> cancer researchers + others, Lyme disease + others etc. (modeled on the
> ResearchGate community). For this to work we should also invest in the
> development and improvement of tools for easy access to information and
> tools for social networking.
>
> Where do publishers fit into this scheme. Ideally publishers should be
> influenced by the Indices of the Foundation to move towards open access
> business models. This could mean that scientific publishers transform into
> service providers ( see Cameron Neylon‘s blog) offering information storage,
> ways of easy access to information, platforms for collaboration etc. , what
> one could call evolution towards a publishing 2.0 business model replacing
> the anachronistic publishing model that many scientific publishers continue
> to use today.
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>