Just because something is sensible, logical and achievable
does not mean it is inevitable or that it will happen
fast. Humans are frequently lazy, capricious, irrational,
tied to vested interests or so stuck in old ways that they
won't budge.
It's a long hard road....
Charles
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:16:14 -0400
Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
> > The debate below has been going on for quite a
> while...
> > Stevan use[s] numbers for what he considers to be
> solved
> > and repetitive questions. It is not all that simple in
> our messy
> world...
> > ...research dissemination is not a logical process; it
> is a social
> and
> > institutional process. Speaking as if it were only
> logical ends up
> confusing
> > many issues because the simplification used is simply
> excessive...
> > When arguments are pushed too hard, beyond their
> pragmatic social
> > and institutional value, they may end up reading like
> rigid slogans,
> > however good the logic behind these arguments may be.
> This is
> > simply counter-productive...
>
> It's a question of time. Others with more time on their
> hands and/or
> fewer decades already wasted on OA may be content to sit
> back and wait
> patiently for human nature to take its glacial social
> course toward OA
> -- irked, perhaps, by the pointed and relentless pushing
> of others
> toward a proven, immediate, practical solution.
>
> But in the one brief lifetime vouchsafed one, I am not
> yet ready to
> concede or believe that something as monumentally
> trivial as OA, and
> as readily reachable as it has been for at least two
> decades, is
> destined to keep on bumbling aimlessly as it has been,
> because of some
> (unstated) law of human nature according to which this
> endless,
> aimless, but far from speechless random walk toward
> nowhere is what it
> is (and ever was) unalterably destined to be.
>
> No, I shall continue to point out the simple, practical
> (and, yes,
> logical) solution (self-archiving), already tried,
> tested, and
> demonstrated to be feasible and successful in generating
> OA for
> everything to which it is applied, until either the
> token drops, or I
> do.
>
> Because the solution is so simple, and there is only
> one, it is
> unavoidable that there will be an element of repetition
> in continuing
> to push for it. But there's the same element of
> repetition in
> continuing to ignore it too; and I'd say that was even
> less productive.
>
> (And I do try to preach it from a different angle each
> time, varying
> my diction and my style. A nice bit of reciprocation
> would be to
> actually pay attention to the content, for once, long
> enough to get
> it, and act on it. That would be the best way to get me
> to shut up.
> Failing that, just some sign of actually having grasped
> the simple
> point at hand would be a rare and welcome treat for me,
> rather than
> just the usual repetitive response of ignoring or
> misconstruing it for
> the Nth time with a groan...)
>
> I can think of nothing more counterproductive than these
> two
> needlessly lost decades insofar as OA, ever within
> immediate reach, is
> concerned (and I doubt that my relentless sloganeering
> has been any
> bit more effectual in prolonging these decades than it
> has been in
> foreshortening them).
>
> Jeremiah
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of
> > Stevan Harnad
> > Sent: Fri 10/30/2009 1:06 PM
> > To:
> > AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> > Subject: Re: Wrong Advice On Open Access: History
> > Repeating
> > Itself
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Noel, Robert E.
> > <rnoel_at_indiana.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Does it make that much difference how universities,
> > > scholars, and
> > > readers
> > > arrive at Open Access?
> >
> > How they do it does not matter if they do arrive at OA.
> > But it makes
> > every difference if they don't.
> >
> > > the price of "Nuclear Physics B" (Elsevier) has been
> > > going down in
> > > recent years
> > > and many users of that literature regard that as a
> > > positive thing
> >
> > Lower journal prices does not mean OA.
> >
> > > It makes me think that open access is not the primary
> > > goal,
> > > but that a specific path to open access is the primary
> > > goal
> >
> > No, OA is the primary goal and lowering journal
> > subscription prices is
> > not a path toward that goal. (And journal boycott
> > threats, even if
> > motivated by OA rather than journal pricing, are
> > ineffectual, as the
> > PLoS boycott has shown.)
> >
> > Robert Noel is conflating the journal affordability
> > problem and the
> > research accessibility problem.
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Noel, Robert E.
> > <rnoel_at_indiana.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > Does it make that much difference how universities,
> > > scholars, and
> > > readers arrive at Open Access? I'm a little puzzled by
> > > the lengths
> > > to which Steven Harnad goes to advance a specific path,
> > > while very
> > > deliberately excluding other cogent, seemingly sensible
> > > ideas. I
> > > have not talked to Jackson about "Getting Yourself out
> > > of the
> > > Business"; perhaps he read the "Wrong Advice" message
> > > below and now
> > > agrees with Mr. Harnad, I don't know.
> > >
> > > It seems the efforts of Berkeley's mathematician Rob
> > > Kirby
> > > (launched SPARC endorsed "Algebraic and Geometric
> > > Topology", and
> > > "Geometry and Topology") were largely seeded by the
> > > spirit of
> > > Jackson's strategy as opposed to any other strategy.
> > > Kirby has
> > > been concerned about commercial publishers' journal
> > > prices and took
> > > action that seems to me to have been constructive action
> > > (see
> > > Notices of the AMS, 2004, "Fleeced"). The message of
> > > that opinion
> > > piece again seems to me to be related to Jackson's
> > > points, and not
> > > so much to the Harnad solution. In what ways are the
> > > actions of
> > > Prof. Bruynooghe and JLP's editorial board roughly a
> > > decade ago a
> > > failure? The resignation of that Board was motivated by
> > > "Getting
> > > yourself out of the Business". Similarly, the price of
> > > "Nuclear
> > > Physics B" (Elsevier) has been going down in recent
> > > years and many
> > > users of that literature regard that as a positive
> > > thing. Many
> > > variables have driven that drop in price, and it's
> > > presumptuous to
> > > think that none of them have to do with Jackson's
> > > points.
> > >
> > > Anyway, others have devoted much more time and energy to
> > > this topic
> > > than I have, but I'm skeptical of recommendations that
> > > bluntly
> > > reject other strategies from the outset. It makes me
> > > think that
> > > open access is not the primary goal, but that a specific
> > > path to
> > > open access is the primary goal, and that access itself
> > > is a
> > > convenient result, but still an afterthought. It's
> > > tantamount to
> > > engineers and scientists recommending to policy makers
> > > that solar
> > > and wind energy are viable alternatives that will reduce
> > > a
> > > country's dependence on oil, but research into biofuels,
> > > maglev
> > > trains, and clean coal is utter nonsense, and reducing
> > > individual
> > > energy consumption by changing lifestyles is a sham, and
> > > in fact
> > > counterproductive.
> > >
> > > Does anyone on the planet have this much foresight as to
> > > how
> > > civilization should communicate and share information?
> > >
> > > Bob Noel
> > > Swain Hall Library
> > > Indiana University
> > > Bloomington, IN 47405
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: boai-forum-bounces_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk
> > > [mailto:boai-forum-bounces_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk
> > > ] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 8:35 AM
> > > To: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> > > Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum
> > > Subject: [BOAI] Wrong Advice On Open Access: History
> > > Repeating Itself
> > >
> > > [Apologies for Cross-Posting: Hyperlinked version is
> > > at:
> > > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/641-guid.html
> > > ]
> > >
> > > With every good intention, Jason Baird Jackson -- in
> > > "Getting
> > > Yourself
> > > Out of the Business in Five Easy Steps"
> > > http://jasonbairdjackson.com/2009/10/12/getting-yourself-out-of-the-bu
> > > siness-in-five-easy-steps/
> > > is giving the wrong advice on Open Access, recommending
> > > a strategy
> > > that has not only been tried and has failed and been
> > > superseded
> > > already, but a strategy that, with some reflection,
> > > could have been
> > > seen to be wrong-headed without even having to be tried:
> > >
> > > * Choose not to submit scholarly journal articles
> > > or other
> > > works to
> > > publications owned by for-profit firms.
> > > * Say no, when asked to undertake peer-review work
> > > on a book or
> > > article manuscript that has been submitted for
> > > publication by a
> > > for-profit publisher or a journal under the control of a
> > > commercial
> > > publisher.
> > > * Do not seek or accept the editorship of a
> > > journal owned or
> > > under the
> > > control of a commercial publisher.
> > > * Do not take on the role of series editor for a
> > > book series
> > > being
> > > published by a for-profit publisher.
> > > * Turn down invitations to join the editorial
> > > boards of
> > > commercially
> > > published journals or book series.
> > >
> > > In the year 2000, 34,000 biological researchers
> > > worldwide signed a
> > > boycott threat to stop publishing in and refereeing for
> > > their
> > > journals
> > > if those journals did not provide (what we would now
> > > call) Open
> > > Access
> > > (OA) to their articles.
> > > http://www.plos.org/about/letter.html
> > >
> > > Their boycott threat was ignored by the publishers of
> > > the journals,
> > > of
> > > course, because it was obvious to them if not to the
> > > researchers that
> > > the researchers had no viable alternative. And of course
> > > the
> > > researchers did not make good on their boycott threat
> > > when their
> > > journals failed to comply.
> > >
> > > The (likewise well-intentioned) activists who had
> > > launched the
> > > boycott
> > > threat then turned to another strategy: They launched
> > > the excellent
> > > PLoS journals (now celebrating their 5th anniversary) to
> > > prove that
> > > there could be viable OA journals of the highest
> > > quality. The
> > > experiment was a great success, and many more OA
> > > journals have since
> > > spawned, some of them (such as the BMC -- now Springer
> > > -- journals)
> > > of
> > > a quality comparable to conventional journals, some not.
> > >
> > > But what also became apparent from the (now 9-year)
> > > exercise was that
> > > providing OA by creating new journals, persuading
> > > authors to publish
> > > in them instead of in their established journals, with
> > > their
> > > track-records for quality, and finding the funds to pay
> > > for the
> > > author
> > > publication fees that many of the OA journals had to
> > > charge (since
> > > they could no longer make ends meet with subscriptions)
> > > was a very
> > > slow and uncertain process.
> > >
> > > There are at least 25,000 peer-reviewed journals
> > > published annually
> > > today, including a core of perhaps 5000 journals that
> > > constitute the
> > > top 20% of the journals in each field, the ones that
> > > most authors
> > > want
> > > to publish in, and most users want to access and use
> > > (and cite).
> > >
> > > There are now about 5000 OA journals too, likewise about
> > > 20%, but
> > > most
> > > -- unlike the PLoS journals (and perhaps the
> > > BMC/Springer and Hindawi
> > > journals) -- are far from being among the top 20% of
> > > journals. Hence
> > > most researchers in 2009 face much the same problem that
> > > the
> > > signatories of the 2000 PLoS boycott threat faced in
> > > 2000: For most
> > > researchers, it would mean a considerable sacrifice to
> > > renounce their
> > > preferred journals and publish instead in an OA journal:
> > > either (more
> > > often) OA journals with comparable quality standards do
> > > not exist, or
> > > their publication charges are a deterrent.
> > >
> > > Yet ever since 2000 (and earlier) there has been no need
> > > for either
> > > threats or sacrifice by researchers in order to have OA
> > > to all of the
> > > planet's peer-reviewed research output. For those same
> > > researchers
> > > who
> > > were signing boycott threats that they could not carry
> > > out could
> > > instead have used those keystrokes to make their own
> > > peer-reviewed
> > > research OA, by depositing their final, peer-reviewed
> > > drafts in OA
> > > repositories as soon as they were accepted for
> > > publication, to make
> > > them freely accessible online to all would-be users
> > > webwide, rather
> > > than just to those whose institutions could afford to
> > > subscribe to
> > > the
> > > journals in which they were published.
> > >
> > > Researchers could have made all their research OA
> > > spontaneously since
> > > at least 1994. They could have done it OAI-compliantly
> > > (interoperably)
> > > since at least 2000.
> > >
> > > But most researchers did not make their own research OA
> > > in 1994, nor
> > > in 2000, and even now in 2009, they seem to prefer
> > > petitioning
> > > publishers for it, rather than providing it for
> > > themselves.
> > >
> > > There is a solution (and researchers themselves have
> > > already revealed
> > > exactly what it was when they were surveyed). That
> > > solution is not
> > > more petitions and more waiting for publishers or
> > > journals to change
> > > their policies or their economics. It is for
> > > researchers'
> > > institutions
> > > and funders to mandate that their researchers provide OA
> > > to their own
> > > refereed research by depositing their final,
> > > peer-reviewed drafts in
> > > OA repositories as soon as they are accepted for
> > > publication, to make
> > > them freely accessible online to all would-be users
> > > webwide, rather
> > > than just to those whose institutions can afford to
> > > subscribe to the
> > > journals in which they were published.
> > >
> > > I would like to suggest that Jason Jackson (and other
> > > well-meaning OA
> > > advocates) could do incomparably more for global OA by
> > > lobbying their
> > > own institutions (and funders) to adopt OA mandates than
> > > by launching
> > > more proposals to boycott publishers who decline to do
> > > what
> > > researchers can already do for themselves. (And
> > > meanwhile, they
> > > should
> > > deposit their articles spontaneously, even without a
> > > mandate.)
> > >
> > > OA Week 2009 would be a good time for the worldwide
> > > research
> > > community
> > > to come to this realization at long last, and reach for
> > > the solution
> > > that has been within its grasp all along.
> > >
> > > Stevan Harnad
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this
> > > page:
> > > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f
> > >
Received on Sat Oct 31 2009 - 20:27:24 GMT