[Open-access] new open access initiative

Tue Jan 31 11:14:55 UTC 2012

>
>
>
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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).
>>
>> The PDF looks good and about the right level of detail. (Finer detail
> gets rapidly eroded by more inputs)
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> 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.
>>
>
> I think we would have difficult labelling it as "Open Access Foundation"
> without the rest of the community being involved and I don't think that
> would happen within years. (Some have just announced Enabling Open
> Scholarship) So I think we should not use "Open Access" as a formal label
> for the whole thing - although something like "Open Access (to) Research".
> might be acceptable. This would also emphasize the science side.
> It's sufficiently different that it doesn't splinter the activity
> unnecessarily. We can also emphasize BOAI / CC-BY in a context which
> doesn't directly challenge them.
>
>
> I don't see why we need to have the rest of the community involved from
the very beginning. Why couldn't we start with a small group and get
community support in the process? It would probably be better to not have
too many factions involved in the beginning since this would be more
difficult to manage ( this has been said before we started this mailing
list: keep it small for the moment).
If we seek collaboration with the originators of the BOAI (and I am all for
that to happen) we wouldn't challenge anybody, except for the people who do
not want "real" open access. And I would think that we want to challenge
them, that is one point of the whole exercise. If we don't get the
collaboration, "at least we have asked" (as I remember this has also been
said before in our group).
In my view a logical  first step in reclaiming the term Open Access is to
use it in the name of the new Initiative, especially if we want to start a
kind of certification with an OA-LOGO.
I cannot judge whether using the term Foundation would imply that we have a
big organisation. As far as I know you can start a Foundation with as few
as 3 people. I read in Wikipedia that the term does not carry legal clout
at least not in the UK. In  NL we would have to be registered. A foundation
Initiative though would not be much of a problem anyway, or am I wrong?


> 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.)
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>> 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. 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.
>
>>
I think the "something of value" could be the establishment of the Open
Access Index, it would be something very new and innovative and could
easily become our branding mark And it certainly wouldn't antoganize
existing groups


>  -- Mike.
>>>
>>
TOM

>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120131/dfba3b66/attachment.html>