[Open-access] Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy

Mon Mar 24 13:29:58 UTC 2014

If we hate the things publishers do, why do "we" (researchers the world over) continue to procure publishers' services on such a massive scale?

"Tough on toll-access; tough on the causes of toll-access"

Jan

On 24 Mar 2014, at 09:53, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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