tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post111103739228604719..comments2024-03-17T08:30:21.129+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Time to Walk the Talk?Richard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-1111412465425968502005-03-21T13:41:00.000+00:002005-03-21T13:41:00.000+00:00Onamatous Riposte To Anonymous PostingThe followin...Onamatous Riposte To Anonymous Posting<BR/><BR/>The following quotes from a public posting attest to all the moral<BR/>authority and reflective rigour that anonymous opining commands (and<BR/>all the courtesy it deserves):<BR/><BR/>In http://poynder.blogspot.com/2005/03/time-to-walk-talk.html<BR/>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Anonymous wrote:<BR/><BR/>> You ask the question "Is it time for OA to walk the talk" My answer is that<BR/>> it has already done so, there are research outputs in OA. <BR/><BR/>10-20% of them. <BR/><BR/>http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/ch.htm<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile 80-90% of them are not -- and their and needless<BR/>daily/monthly/yearly research usage/impact loss is the continuing,<BR/>cumulative problem that OA is intended to solve.<BR/><BR/>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin3-harnad_files/Slide0014.gif<BR/><BR/>> The real question is can OA work? There the answers are less clear. <BR/><BR/>They are quite clear for the 10-20% OA there is. <BR/><BR/>That non-OA is not working for the remaining 80-90% is also crystal-clear.<BR/><BR/>http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html<BR/><BR/>> I am disapponted that you only referred to the "series of bad-tempered<BR/>> wrangles" you didn't report them or didn't elaborate on their<BR/>> implications.<BR/><BR/>Some people want real progress; some just prefer wrangling, and<BR/>hearing about wrangles.<BR/><BR/>> OA as a concept is fine, the issues around implementation are many and<BR/>> varied. After all, libraries, who, up to now, have been the repositories,<BR/>> work because of agreements on the form and content of the descriptions<BR/>> of the materials.<BR/><BR/>When we translate this into ordinary english, it says: <BR/><BR/> Until now, print journals have provided the form and content, and<BR/> libraries have provided the storage and access.<BR/><BR/>Fine; and now, in the online age, it is time to *supplement* this access with<BR/>the self-archived version -- whose content is the peer-reviewed final draft,<BR/>but not the publisher's official final PDF form -- for those would-be users<BR/>worldwide whose institutions cannot afford to access the official version.<BR/><BR/>http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#2.Authentication<BR/>http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#3.Corruption<BR/>http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#23.Version<BR/>http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#25.Mark-Up<BR/>http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#26.Classification<BR/>http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#1.Preservation<BR/><BR/>> There exist some equivalent agreements for IRs but they are as yet unproven. <BR/><BR/>"Agreements" for IRs? What on earth is that? Agreements are made with publishers<BR/>(and the publishers of 92% of journals have already agreed on author<BR/>self-archiving).<BR/><BR/>http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php<BR/><BR/>Is this just another (anonymous) adumbration of the copyright canards?<BR/><BR/>http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#self-archiving-legal<BR/>http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#10.Copyright<BR/>http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#32.Poisoned<BR/><BR/>> The sort of semi-dismissive reactions to questions about how OA can<BR/>> work as a world-wide repository interconnection, such as "indexing and<BR/>> interconection are not problems, identifying the materials can be handled<BR/>> by the appropriate software" begs the question of how and by whom?<BR/><BR/>The Web too, shamefully begs this question: a distributed entity:<BR/>handled how and by whom?<BR/><BR/>Here is a glimpse at the answer (for those with eyes to see -- rather<BR/>than semi-dismissive hemi-anopia -- and onomatous identities with which<BR/>to answer for their casual cavils):<BR/><BR/>http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse<BR/>http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php<BR/>http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search<BR/>http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/<BR/>http://www.openarchives.org/<BR/>http://scholar.google.com/<BR/><BR/>> Change is good, it is essential to innovation, but change for change sake is<BR/>> not so good. If OA is to blossom it needs much more than statements of a<BR/>> motherhood nature, it needs a plan, agreed and implemented by a number of<BR/>> major players, with clear objectives and checkpoints.<BR/><BR/>Yes, more such otiose platitudes as these are surely what is sorely<BR/>lacking today: research access, usage and impact can wait...<BR/><BR/>> One last point; your description of Stevan Harnad's description of the "nth<BR/>> keystroke" seems to me to be an Orwellian approach, are researchers to be<BR/>> cowed into OA by virtue of the RAE implications? Don't forget that RAE is,<BR/>> as far as I know, a particularly UK phenomenon; questioned by some as to its<BR/>> usefulness. I doubt if 'fear' of RAE is sufficient motivation for OA. <BR/><BR/>I will leave it to others to debate whether the ubiquitous Publish-or-Perish<BR/>constraint that cows researchers into doing and reporting research is Orwellian.<BR/><BR/>I note only that the Keystroke Strategy is merely a book-keeping matter,<BR/>and applicable to all universities and research institutions worldwide,<BR/>not just the UK/RAE-bound ones:<BR/><BR/> If you wish your research output to be visible, counted, and rewarded<BR/> for grant-fulfillment, performance-evaluation, and institutional<BR/> record-keeping purposes, please deposit the metadata (author, title,<BR/> journals, etc.) plus the full-text in our institutional repository.<BR/><BR/> Whether or not you do the Nth Keystroke to make the full-text OA is<BR/> strongly encouraged, but up to you. The only thing that hangs on it<BR/> is your research impact (which we already count, along with your<BR/> publications)...<BR/><BR/> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin3-harnad.ppt<BR/><BR/>Stevan Harnad<BR/><BR/>AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:<BR/>A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing<BR/>open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005)<BR/>is available at:<BR/>http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/<BR/> To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:<BR/>http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html<BR/> Post discussion to:<BR/> american-scientist-open-access-forum@amsci.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-1111400934393140592005-03-21T10:28:00.000+00:002005-03-21T10:28:00.000+00:00You ask the question "Is it time for OA to walk th...You ask the question "Is it time for OA to walk the talk" My answer is that it has already done so, there are research outputs in OA. The real question is can OA work? There the answers are less clear. I am disapponted that you only referred to the "series of bad-tempered wrangles" you didn't report them or didn't elaborate on their implications. OA as a concept is fine, the issues around implementation are many and varied. After all, libraries, who, up to now, have been the repositories, work because of agreements on the form and content of the descriptions of the materials. There exist some equivalent agreements for IRs but they are as yet unproven. The sort of semi-dismissive reactions to questions about how OA can work as a world-wide repository interconnection, such as "indexing and interconection are not problems, identifying the materials can be handled by the appropriate software" begs the question of how and by whom?<BR/><BR/>Change is good, it is essential to innovation, but change for change sake is not so good. If OA is to blossom it needs much more than statements of a motherhood nature, it needs a plan, agreed and implemented by a number of major players, with clear objectives and checkpoints.<BR/><BR/>One last point; your description of Stevan Harnad's description of the "nth keystroke" seems to me to be an Orwellian approach, are researchers to be cowed into OA by virtue of the RAE implications? Don't forget that RAE is, as far as I know, a particularly UK phenomenon; questioned by some as to its usefulness. I doubt if 'fear' of RAE is sufficient motivation for OA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-1111185649746484372005-03-18T22:40:00.000+00:002005-03-18T22:40:00.000+00:00I think the important issues in the meeting were i...I think the important issues in the meeting were in two themes. What I think we all realised was that we had to have some form of commitment to change, some practical objectives to achieve within the larger development of open access. The other major issue for me was the global reach and continuing momentum of the idea - every report gave some degree of progress. The succession of reports from country after country really underlined this. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Given my role with institutional repositories, then I may be biased, but I felt there was also strong support for the idea of *institutional* repositories as the most practical way forward now. Their utility within institutions gives a good incentive for building and maintaining them. This infrastructure provides the stability repositories need and the chance for local support to be provided to academic staff in their use. Population has been a problem for some time, but then that is the nature of adoption of new ways of thinking or working: things remain bubbling under for some time until there is some switch thrown somewhere and suddenly it is an accepted part of life. For that to happen, there has to be a fairly comprehensive infrastructure to catch things as the idea takes off. We are getting there now with the spread of repositories that we have and there are a lot of people working on a lot of different developments, any one of which may be the switch which turns the network on. I don't think the growth will be slow and steady: I think when it comes, it will take off very quickly.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As Stevan Harnad is quoted in your article, I don't think it is a matter of rewriting the Declaration. This outlined the aims and beliefs: the pledge from Southampton gives an example of a concrete expression of the ideas. I hope that signatories take note of the pledge and decide to implement it. If they don't, or if there is some practical difficulty of execution, then it raises the question of what measures they will take to back up their support for the Berlin Declaration. All this keeps discussion of implementation of the ideas of Open Access current - which is all to the good. And even better if its done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com