[open-archaeology] AIA and open access

Mon Apr 23 13:28:59 UTC 2012

Hi all,

I tweaked the language just a little so that it wouldn't immediately raise
the hackles of the American audience.

The AIA is an incredibly stuffy organization that mostly funds
classical/old world archaeology and is an interesting blend of academics
and hobbyists. The for-pay model has mostly worked for them and they have a
lot invested in keeping it that way.

It might be better to highlight Tim Gowers and the boycott on Elsevier.

Cheers,

Colleen

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Anthony Beck <A.R.Beck at leeds.ac.uk> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-archaeology/attachments/20120423/9f4d946d/attachment.html>