[open-archaeology] AIA and open access

Mon Apr 23 17:26:51 UTC 2012

My apologies--it is unfair to characterize the AIA categorically. I've
certainly been part of many "slow-moving" organizations where things like
digital photography are extremely outré.

 Cheers,

Colleen

On Monday, April 23, 2012, Sebastian Heath wrote:

> The AIA is sometimes slow moving but "incredibly stuffy" doesn't quite
> capture the range of people in either the membership or on the board.
> And there's no reason to think the board actually had a hand in this.
> There is a lot of anger about the statement over here.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Colleen Morgan <clmorgan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-archaeology/attachments/20120423/36d6b1a3/attachment.html>