[open-archaeology] AIA and open access

Mon Apr 23 11:08:45 UTC 2012

Many thanks. That has softened many of the stings in the original. 

I think it would be good if this was hosted/pinned on the OKF website and sent to AIA from two people (Steko as convenor of the Open Archaeology group and someone who has some clout in AIA (or the US)). It should also be cc'd to others at AIA (I'm thinking both the CEO and COO at least: http://www.archaeological.org/about/contact). 

It may also be appropriate to send it through as a stand-alone commentary to American Antiquity and possibly to Antiquity (the latter could be part of a broader article including the journal of open archaeology data (http://openarchaeologydata.metajnl.com/) and DART providing open access to all its data during the project lifetime). This will also raise the profile of what we're trying to do. Anyway we could discuss this later.

This still doesn't solve the UK bias problem :-(

A

-----Original Message-----
From: open-archaeology-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:open-archaeology-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Bevan
Sent: 23 April 2012 11:23
To: Stefano Costa
Cc: open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
Subject: Re: [open-archaeology] AIA and open access

Okay -- I had a quick look and it seem good to me. I made a few quick notes on the draft and there are some more comments below, but am travelling and cannot make the skype call....apologies.

1) Whilst the rest of the letter can afford to be a little pugnacious given the context, the closing of the response (which is not yet drafted) needs to adopt as positive and conciliatory position as it can?

2) Do we need to clarify the degree to which the first paragraph is referring to eprints as a practice (is this what Elizabeth Bartman is referring to with regard to the Federal Research Public Access Act) in her para 2, lines 1-2?)? Without wanting to expand the scope of the response, this probably links into the debate over how publishers respond to request from institutional repositories?

3) I think the "While it may be true that the government finances research, it does not fund the arduous peer-review process that lies at the heart of journal and scholarly publication" comment is the most inappropriate position taken and should be the one given the most weight in the response. Perhaps an extra sentence to stress how misleading this is? I have recently seen a different publisher make the claim that they personally offer the added value behind peer review as a part of a negotiating stance about eprints, so it is clear a more widely held position... I suspect, if pushed, publishers would point to the temporary access rights (e.g. to download publications) they often offer peer reviewers as a form of payment for services, so it might be appropriate to rebut this in passing? Given the fact that many peer reviewers come from institutions who will have to have paid for such access already, this argument would be tantamount to trying to sell the same thing twice.

4) Is there any way to make the response less UK-heavy? Or to indicate similar US positions?

Andy

PS. I have been intermittently an AIA member but not currently.

On 23 Apr 2012, at 02:25, Stefano Costa wrote:

> Il 16/04/2012 23:17, Stefano Costa ha scritto:
>> There are several issues with this statement, that you can read and 
>> amend athttp://archeo.okfnpad.org/responsetoaia
>> together with a call for action.
>> 
>> We should aim for a quick, comprehensive and well-argumented rebuttal 
>> of this statement (3 characteristics that are at the opposite sides 
>> of reasonability, I realise). Let's fix a deadline in one week, on 23rd April 2012.
> 
> Dear all,
> thanks to Ant Beck (and feedback he had from Cameron Neylon) we now have a draft of response at http://archeo.okfnpad.org/responsetoaia but we would like to improve it, pulling in figures for other countries than the UK and making it a bit less "pedantic" (in Ant's words).
> 
> Ant, Leif and myself have agreed a Skype call this afternoon at 4pm BST. We'd be happy if anyone of you can join us, or send suggestions by e-mail if you can't. I'm sorry a few e-mails went off-list, and I want to make sure that everyone feels comfortable with collaborating on this initiative.
> 
> Looking forward to speaking with you later, steko
> 
> PS is any of us a member of AIA? Do you know any?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
> 

_______________________________________________
open-archaeology mailing list
open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology