[Open-access] Infrastructure reform [was: Crowdsourcing request + BMJ OA Policy]

Tue Mar 25 15:10:11 UTC 2014

>
> For the newer literature [>1985], we'd need to rely on mandates,
> green/gold OA and should get anywhere between 30-80% of the literature,
> with the fraction increasing the older the literature.

The most interesting part of that newer literature would be the PDFs that
all the Mendeley users had uploaded to their accounts. I'm not surprised
Elsevier bought them out: it would have been trivial to turn each Mendeley
user account into a public open access repository (think bittorrent) which
would have contained pretty much all the literature that anyone was ever
actually going to cite, thereby knocking the antics of Aaron Schwartz (may
peace be upon his name) into a cocked hat.

Those dinosaurs better keep their eyes peeled on Zotero users this (and
every) Thursday. A worldwide shiver of sharing would be fun to see.

Que la lumière arrive!

D.

2014-03-25 13:41 GMT+01:00 Bjoern Brembs <b.brembs at gmail.com>:

> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014, 8:53:26 AM, you wrote:
>
> > Open Access looks backward - it is not part of the
> > Digital Enlightenment. It's authoritarian and debases the author.
>
> > Bjoern - I am happy to be in the vanguard.
>
> I'm thinking out loud here.
>
> As I see it, money solves our infrastructure crises: it pays for people to
> develop the infrastructure.
>
> The money is currently tied down in subscriptions at about US$10b annually.
>
> There are two processes that need to be replaced either consecutively or
> simultaneously: reading/access and writing.
>
> For reading, we need to get as much of the current literature, i.e., from
> 1664 to about 12 months ago, into our control. Given international law,
> some clever way of picking the physical location of some servers, we should
> be able to make a huge fraction of the literature (probably approaching
> 100% for everything before 1985, less after that) available online free of
> charge, likely with liberal re-use rights. For the newer literature, we'd
> need to rely on mandates, green/gold OA and should get anywhere between
> 30-80% of the literature, with the fraction increasing the older the
> literature.
> Getting uptake here should be very easy, as it would be the best and
> easiest place to get your literature.
>
> For writing, we need to implement or copy/improve systems like SciELO or
> AJOL as an alternative to journals.
> Uptake here is not so easy, because of journal rank, but we have the
> evidence against journal rank and will be able to provide much better,
> scientifically vetted metrics. Moreover, if we cancel subscriptions, fewer
> people will be able to access your paper, so which author wants that? This
> means, uptake hinges on replacing journal rank.
>
> If both cannot be accomplished simultaneously, reading needs to come
> first, as it will make massive subscription cuts less noticeable. Once
> subscriptions are cut, we will quickly have millions to develop all the
> other capabilities we have been talking about in this thread.
>
> This is the sequence of events that I see no way around, if we want
> something that makes our lives easier and brings us into the 21st century.
> How to make this sequence happen is a different question. Here I think the
> money from a few libraries with large enough subscription budgets to cut
> should be sufficient to get us quite far initially, given how relatively
> easy the task is technically.
>
>
> 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
>

-- 
Douglas Carnall
dougie.carnall at gmail.com
http://cabinetbeezer.info
Traduction vers l'anglais
Rédaction de textes en anglais
Coaching pour présentations en anglais
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20140325/57a1281a/attachment-0002.html>