Re: OA's Problem Is Not Funding But Keystrokes: Solution Is Mandates

From: Klaus Graf <klausgraf_at_GOOGLEMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:51:05 +0100

2008/2/18, Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Thomas Krichel wrote:
>
> > As Jean-Claude knows, I am a trained economist...
> >
> > Thus, here is what Jean and his gang should do: they should argue
> > that the university should cancel physics, mathematics,
> > computer science, economics journals (just to name a few
> > where de facto open access is very high), and hand over the
> > money to them so that they can help local author build
> > high-quality digital scholarly assets.
>
> This is stunningly, breath-takingly bad advice! I hope readers of this
> Forum are by now well enough informed to know that they should ignore it,
> and why.
>
> OA's problem is not funding. Nor is it journal pricing.
>
> OA's problem is research access denial and impact loss.
>
> And what local authors need is not "money to build high-quality digital
> scholarly assets". They need mandates -- from their institutions and
> their funders -- to deposit their published journal articles in their
> local OA Institutional Repositories.
>
> Forget about canceling journals until *after* we have OA (no discipline
> has it yet). Otherwise you are failing to reach for the obvious, which
> is completely within your grasp -- and gratuitously reducing access
> instead of increasing it.

Here are my mantras:

* There is poor empirical proof that mandates work.

* In Germany institutional university mandates are nearly impossible
because of legal reasons.

* With a lot of money the Netherlands have brought important parts of
the research output of a whole country in OA repositories ("Cream of
science") - without a mandate!

* For publication in Not-English languages outside the STM field there
are very few informations if publishers allow self-archiving. For a
German historian like me Elsevier is irrelevant (although maintaining
the most journals worldwide). For ALL leading historical journals in
the German language there is NO information available about
self-archiving. I repeat: NO. I think decisions are made by the
publishers on a case by case basis.

* Self-archiving isn't technically easy. Most scholars in the
humanities prefer scanned articles and have no time to scan.

* Very few repositories have an eprint mail button. We know nothing
about the chance of interested citizen or scholars to get the
permission of the author.

OA needs a lot of experiments not a Harnadian orthodoxy of simple solutions.

Klaus Graf
Received on Mon Feb 18 2008 - 13:32:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:13 GMT
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6954.html
www.southampton.ac.uk
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-49
10895
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:DMQP2BHNVCHVINSPXUQ3B3Q7Z7USY4BB
<urn:uuid:6b10098f-d33f-4f2f-ada0-c828f712c901>
2022-12-09T23:16:37Z
152.78.118.52
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:6THLRZLYKS63MQXSQLHNKNHSH3LD6EQ7
<urn:uuid:daddfbad-06ad-4aad-bc79-669a995bff4f>
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6954.html
response
<urn:uuid:50ad19cd-4d19-453b-b726-2ece8553c928>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-49
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-73
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/