[Open-access] new open access initiative

Mon Jan 30 14:57:25 UTC 2012

Hi,

I have made a visual presentation of the ideas in my previous posting. One
time as a PDF file , the other is a java applet in a zip file which allows
to expand the branches of the mindmap in a browser (Chrome or other).

Regarding Mike's question, I think that because we build communities around
medical themes, the Open Access message will have a lot more impact and
hopefully mobilize many silent voters. Those people already active could
still be attracted to our initiative because it offers ways for direct
online contacts in  one's own discipline and means of finding collaborating
partners. Scientists from outside of the medical field might feel inspired
to start their own circles on our site.
If all this works as planned, existing initiatives could be attracted
because of our MO factor , still continue to do what their initiative set
out to do but link to us because of the added value we offer. So yes, I
expect that we we are going to act as a GLUE more than as another splinter
group.
TOM

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120130/2ef9bd58/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Open Access Foundation.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 96773 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120130/2ef9bd58/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenAccessFoundation.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 1019341 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120130/2ef9bd58/attachment-0002.zip>