[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

[Mike Taylor]

There is a very fundamental point underlying Bjorn's position here,
which I feel that I am only now seeing clearly. For anyone else who's
been as slow as I have, here it is.

In the exchange of scholarly information there are, fundamentally, two
parties: producers and consumers. Both of these have the same goal:
for research to be available as universally as possible. For
historical reasons a third party is involved in the process --
publishers -- and they do not have the same goal. I'm not blaming them
for that: it's not a moral failing, it's just a fact that they want
different things from what the writers and readers of scholarly
literature want.

That's why publishers so often do things that we hate: the
fundamentally do not want what we want. It's that simple.

-- Mike.




On 24 March 2014 09:13, Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 22, 2014, 12:06:01 PM, you wrote:
>
>> We clearly underestimate how backwards the Open Access
>> community is compared to Wikipedia, the F/LOSS movement
>> and Open government. Publishers can drive holes through
>> legislation and there are only a few of us to protect the
>> commons. I am disappointed that University libraries
>> aren't more active and knowledgeable.
>
> I share your disappointment, but what other options do we have? I think Richard Poynder hit it the nail on the head in many ways:
>
> http://poynder.blogspot.de/2014/03/the-state-of-open-access.html
>
> If we keep working with publishers, we get what we deserve. Just this morning again, I read about yet another publisher turning their backs on scientists:
>
> http://retractionwatch.com/2014/03/21/controversial-paper-linking-conspiracy-ideation-to-climate-change-skepticism-formally-retracted/
>
> Nothing to do with licenses, but still outrageous.
>
> If we keep treating publishers as viable options for our intellectual output, this is what we have to deal with.
>
> So if libraries don't do what we'd expect them to do, maybe it's time for us to demand the infrastructure we need for our texts, software and data?
>
> We should demand subscription cancellations to free up funds for infrastructure development, such that we can wean ourselves from the dependence of corporate publishers with orthogonal interests from ours.
>
> Let's help our libraries help us, instead of wearing them thin, torn between the demands of their faculty and those of the publishers.
>
> Before we can demand anything from libraries, we need to provide them with the wherewithal to actually deliver. Support subscription cuts now!
>
> Bjoern
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Björn Brembs
> ---------------------------------------------
> http://brembs.net
> Neurogenetics
> Universität Regensburg
> Germany
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access