[open-archaeology] AIA and open access

[Andrew Bevan]

Agreed in terms of the AIA being a diverse institution, but I think Coleen's initial characterisation does indeed accurately reflect an image problem that the AIA really does have (despite the many progressive individuals involved at many levels) and one not helped by the current opinion piece from the top.

Andy



On 23 Apr 2012, at 19:26, Colleen Morgan wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120423/8d779440/attachment.html>