[Open-access] An anti-RWA bill

[Mike Taylor]

Everything you say is true.

But.

It's a question of strategy.  How we get there from here.  If you go
to 100 randomly chosen scientists from randomly chosen institutions,
you'll get 87 blank stares 12 furious arguments that some form of the
journal system is necessary, and -- if you're lucky -- one who will
sign up for your Destroy All Publishers campaign.

Politics is the art of the possible.  What's possible *today* is a
strong move towards universal open access within the existing
publishing system.  (Or at least open access for federally funded
research in the USA.)

Once that has been achieved, the publishers' position will be more
precarious, and it will be more apparent to more academics how little
we need publishers.  From there I think we may be able to push on to
your dream scenario.  (Publishers know that they will be more
vulnerable in a more open-access world.  I think that is the main
reason they oppose it -- more than short-term profits, even.)

So how do we get there from here?  One step at a time.  Let's not
throw out a hugely useful candidate step, such as federally mandated
OA on everything it funds, because our eyes are lifted too far to the
heavens already.

[Thompson's Rule for First-Time Telescope Makers.]  It is faster to
make a four-inch mirror then a six-inch mirror than to make a six-inch
mirror.
	-- Bill McKeeman, Wang Institute

-- Mike.






On 31 January 2012 13:09, Björn Brembs <b.brembs at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Nick Barnes wrote:
>
>> Or to broaden it: pass an act requiring all
>> federally-funded research papers to be open
>> access.
>
> What would be a rational reason to send our
> publications to publishers, only to then retrieve
> it from them again, even if it all were OA?
> Their format (and I don't mean the layout) would
> still be closed, non-interoperable and without any
> standards.
> What do publishers do we can't do better, for less
> money?
>
> Keeping publishers just adds reform upon reform
> and we'll not be alive to see any of the
> technology the general public has around today,
> ever be implemented. Why would they give up their
> profits without at least using them against us?
> They can spend more than 10 million US$ every
> single day for years to fight us. Do you have any
> idea how many politicians you can buy for than
> money?
> This fight is like the entangled fly trying to
> convince the spider not to eat it.
>
> There is no law required to convince our libraries
> we don't need publishers any more.
> We don't need to pay our librarians to get access
> to them.
> Why would we keep giving publishers millions every
> single day, which they only use to fight us?
> Cut off the funding for the publishers and all our
> problems are solved - the money we save builds the
> technology we need.
>
> The current system is like asking them to take our
> money to fight us, that's worthy of Monty Python
> ("let's call it a draw!"), but not of scholars.
>
> I'm not supporting anything that keeps publishers
> in business, unless someone can convince me that
> it's not a Monty Python sketch.
>
> Best,
>
> Bjoern
>
>
>
>
> --
> Björn Brembs
> ---------------------------------------------
> http://brembs.net
> Neurobiology
> Freie Universität Berlin
> Germany
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access