[Open-access] new open access initiative

Mon Jan 30 15:40:43 UTC 2012

On 30 January 2012 15:32, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> 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.)
>
> This isn't quite similar (I do this with chemistry filetypes). The OA
> concept is simple if one hangs onto BOAI. The splintering has already taken
> place. So our variant is simply reaffirming one of the nodes.

Right -- the Budapest node.

Which leads me to ask: what happened to the original group that put
that definition out and built the website?  Are they still running?
If so, could we do this in concert with them?  After all we are
working to promulgate their definition; and any branding program would
have more weight if it was associated with the Budapest initiative
itself.

>>> What can we do to avoid this?
>
> It's 100% a political question. The "mainstream OA" community has a
> philosophy that simply using the term "open access" is sufficient - it
> doesn't matter what it refers to.

Are you sure that's true?  All I am seeing along those lines is
Stephen Harnad pasting the same long comment into a hundred different
blogs' comment streams.  He is loud, sure, but there is only one of
him.

-- Mike.

> I have spent years trying to influence
> this and got nowhere. We should build something of value - where the OAness
> is fundamental but not challenging and then when it's a success bring it
> back in.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 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
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-access mailing list
>> open-access at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>