[Open-access] [GOAL] Re: Re: Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest "FIRST" Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc.

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Eric,
>
> 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.
>

The page is getting a bit crowded, and somewhat illegible!

Of course Eric, Bernard and I agree on the advantages of distributed
institutional repositories over central ones (for direct deposit -- central
repositories are fine for export or harvesting).

And that agreement is not ideological but practical.

But as for librarians getting out of the business of subscribing to
journals -- that's just ideology (and completely unrealistic) as long as
authors don't into the business of self-archiving their published articles
in their institutional repositories.

And that's precisely what Green OA mandates are for.

Without an effective Green OA mandate, institutional repositories are
useless (for OA).

Users need access, now, and if they can't have open access, they at least
need as much subscription access as their institutions can afford.

May I suggest that we clearly distinguish our practical points from those
that are merely ideological desiderata and wishful thinking?

Stevan Harnad


>
>
> 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
> > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/10/where-puck-wont-be.html
> > and
> > Annealing the Library
> > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/04/annealing-library.html
>
>
> > --Eric.
>
>
> > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
>
> > 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,
>
>  >> Bjoern
>
>
>
>
>
>  >> --
>  >> Björn Brembs
>  >> ---------------------------------------------
>  >> http://brembs.net
>  >> Neurogenetics
>  >> Universität Regensburg
>  >> Germany
>
>
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
>  >> GOAL mailing list
>  >> GOAL at eprints.org
>  >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Björn Brembs
> ---------------------------------------------
> http://brembs.net
> Neurogenetics
> Universität Regensburg
> Germany
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20131118/6436fb35/attachment-0002.html>