JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-INNOVATION Archives


JISC-INNOVATION Archives

JISC-INNOVATION Archives


JISC-INNOVATION@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-INNOVATION Home

JISC-INNOVATION Home

JISC-INNOVATION  July 2004

JISC-INNOVATION July 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: The UK report, press coverage, and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

jisc development discussion forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:41:28 +0100

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (126 lines)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Jan Velterop wrote:

>     Stevan Harnad wrote: The press just keeps on missing the mark!
>
> The mark is Open Access... The press is not missing that mark...
> Which tactical or strategic method is being used to get to Open Access
> is perhaps a secondary mark, not of interest to the press.

The mark is Open Access (OA). How we get to that mark is of primary
importance, whether or not of secondary interest to the press. When the
press misses or misrepresents the historically important recommendations
of the recent UK (and US) Committees, they miss and misrepresent how and
why it is recommended that we get where. To miss that is to miss the mark,
primary, secondary, or otherwise.

To be more specific: When the specific recommendation of both UK and US
Committees is to mandate OA self-archiving of authors' published journal
articles, it is a misrepresentation to call that a recommendation to
publish in OA journals, or a recommendation for OA publishing.

The correct summary of the UK recommendations is this:

    (UK-1) Mandate author-institution OA self-archiving of all UK-funded
    research output (and fund and support the practise, as needed)

    (UK-2) Fund author-institution costs of publishing in OA journals

    (UK-3) Fund and support further experimentation with the OA journal
    publishing cost-recovery model
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm

The correct summary of the US recommendation is this:

    (US-1) Mandate author OA self-archiving of all NIH-funded research
    output.
http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=o31

The reason it matters what the press reports is that press reports
influence what the public learns and understands and does about OA. The
public includes the tax-payers who are meant to be behind this mandate
and, even more important, the university administrators and grant-funding
officers who are meant to implement it, and, more important still,
the researchers who are meant to comply with it.
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php

Dwelling instead -- irrelevantly and misleadingly -- on what the reports
did *not* recommend mandating -- namely OA publishing -- not only
fails to convey what they actually did recommend, but it propagates and
prolongs the prevailing and persisting misunderstanding about OA and
how to reach it that has so long delayed OA itself.

OA is the target, and that target will not be reached by waiting for OA
publishing (gold). It will be reached, immediately, by OA self-archiving
(green), which is what both reports recommended mandating. Implementing
that mandate depends on authors, their universities, and their funders,
not on publishers or publishing.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0026.gif

If journal publishers are to be pressured to do anything at all,
it is to go green, not gold -- i.e., to give their official
green light to author-institution self-archiving, as they have
already done for 84% of their journals: http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php
Mandated self-archiving will help raise that green percentage to 100%:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0028.gif

> The target is Open Access, whichever arrows we use, even if the press is
> confused about the colour of the arrows' vanes. What's important is that
> they do not lose sight of the target.

It's not about color confusion, it's about concept-confusion,
strategy-confusion, target-confusion -- and the failure to convey
the essence of both recommendations. OA is the end, and mandated
self-archiving is the means. That's what needs to be understood by
journalists, and that is the understanding that needs to be conveyed to
their readers. *Then* the opinions can be solicited, and that chat-show
panorama so favoured by today's journalists and readers can be duly
purveyed.

But first get the facts straight.

Stevan Harnad

> Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> > The press just keeps on missing the mark!
> >
> > "American and British Lawmakers Endorse Open-Access Publishing"
> > Andrea Foster and Lila Guterman
> > Chronicle of Higher Education, July 30, 2004
> > http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i47/47a01302.htm
> >
> > > "In a double coup for the open-access movement this month,
> > > committees of the U.S. Congress and British Parliament recommended
> > > that papers resulting from government-financed research be made
> > > available free. The committees recommended that the U.S. and British
> > > governments require researchers to deposit in free, online archives
> > > any articles that arise from research sponsored, respectively,
> > > by the National Institutes of Health and any British agency.
> >
> > So far, so good. That part was correct. But then:
> >
> > >    The British committee further recommended that journal publishers
> > >    adopt an open-access model in which authors would pay to publish
> > >    and subscription fees would be eliminated. Both governments are
> > >    expected to act on the committees' recommendations this year."
> >
> > No, the British committee did not recommend that; on the contrary, they
> > explicitly refrained from recommending it and recommended only further
> > experimentation with it, along with funding to help pay
> > author-institutions costs for OA Publishing.
> >
> > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cms
> ctech/399/39903.htm
>
> Nor is the title of the story correct:
>
> "American and British Lawmakers Endorse Open-Access Publishing"
>
> "Endorsement" is ambiguous. What, if anything, both the Americans and the
> British endorsed was Open Access (OA), not OA Publishing. They recommended
> mandating OA *Provision* through author/institution self-archiving of
> published articles (the "green" road to OA), not OA Publishing (the golden
> road to OA).
>
> Stevan Harnad
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
January 2012
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager