[Open-access] [GOAL] Re: Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest "FIRST" Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc.
b.brembs at gmail.com
Mon Nov 18 16:30:23 UTC 2013
I am so completely and utterly on your page. This is precisely the way we need to go and every library meeting I speak at confirms this view: everyone I meet there gives me the feedback that they're ready to go for it.
Thanks for making this important point!
On Monday, November 18, 2013, 5:17:37 PM, you wrote:
> Stevan, Bernard:
> My main concern is not with mandates, but with the
> repositories themselves. If memory serves me right, there
> was at least one unsuccessful attempt to defund the
> NIH-run Pubmed repository. ArXiv also had an existential
> crisis when run from a government lab.
> The weakness of government-run repositories is that those
> who want to undermine these repositories have to be
> successful only once. Those who support these OA
> repositories must fend off every attack.
> To immunize against this, we need a distributed approach
> with sufficient duplication to form an archive that is
> immune from any one particular weakness. This is what
> libraries have always done, and should continue to do.
> Libraries have no role (except as advocates) in enacting
> and enforcing mandates, but they can be useful in
> implementing the mandates effectively by managing the distributed archive.
> In fact, Stevan has made the same arguments against
> central repositories in the past. So, I think we are all
> on the same wave length here up to this point.
> Where I go one step further, is in making the argument
> that libraries need to get out of the digital-lending
> business altogether and dedicate their efforts to the
> maintenance and development of the archive. See:
> Where the Puck won't be
> Annealing the Library
> Twitter: @evdvelde
> E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM, <brentier at ulg.ac.be> wrote:
> Libraries are definitely places where awareness occurs.
> They are the sentinels. However, they don't have enough
> power (generally) to impose Open Access as a permanent reflex with researchers.
> The only way researchers can be convinced is through
> mandatory pressure from the funders and/or the Academic
> authorities. And the only way mandates can be imposed is
> through the research assessment procedures. Everything else lingers or fails.
> (82% compliance with incitative mandates instead of 8%
> on average with 'soft' mandates).
> If the pressure is applied through Green OA mandates,
> academic freedom is fully respected. All it takes is 5
> minutes (max) extra work for each new publication (usually not a daily task).
> Considering the benefits for the author(s), the mandate soon becomes accessory.
>> Le 17 nov. 2013 à 23:11, Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> On Friday, November 15, 2013, 1:09:13 AM, you wrote:
>>> The political approach may be necessary to get OA
>>> enacted, but we need to implement OA in such a way that it
>>> is immune from political influence. In my book, that seems
>>> to be a perfect role for libraries.
>> This is a serious problem with mandates: they are liable to political influence - and billions in $$$ pay for plenty of political influence, way more than we can ever dream of having.
>> I thus support Eric's motion: we need to move everything in-house, away from any political influence. Libraries are the natural place for that.
>> Best wishes,
>> Björn Brembs
>> Universität Regensburg
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
More information about the open-access