On 2012-05-02, at 9:28 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
> On 2 May 2012, at 13:32, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>> Andrew is so right (and the current UK government is showing as much good
>> sense in turning to JW as they showed for many years in turning to RM).
>> Wikipedia is based on the antithesis of peer review. Asking JW to help make
>> sure peer-reviewed research is available to all is like asking McDonalds to
>> help the WHO/FDA make sure that wholesome food is available to all.
> Ach, come off it, Stevan. By your reckoning arXiv is also the antithesis of peer review. Would you talk in the same way about Paul Ginsparg?
Arxiv contains preprints of articles before and after peer review. Arxiv
does not do peer review. Neither do institutional repositories.
(Why do you ask about Paul Ginsparg?)
> OA will gain from more involvement of people who understand diplomacy, persuasion, and yes, 'marketing'.
At the moment, Jimmy Wales does not have a clue about what are the real
problems of getting OA provided by researchers; nor does he have a clear
understanding of (or any experience with) peer review.
This can all be remedied, if someone has JW's ear, and he listens and understands.
Then JW can be a helpful (though no doubt expensive) conduit to the ears of
those (David Willetts?) who are in a position to do what needs to get done to
make the RCUK mandates work.
Meanwhile, regarding diplomacy and persuasion, I suggest that you give
more weight to what Professor Rentier has posted
about academia's attitude to Wikipedia. We are trying to win researchers
over to providing OA to their peer-reviewed research -- not to win them
over to some fantasied Wikipedia-style alternative to peer review.
We've been down this path so many times, Jan. Is the appointment of a
celebrity name now to be the occasion for rehearsing it all yet again?
It's not diplomacy that's needed; it's effectively formulated and implemented
policy. The RCUK already leads the rest of the world in OA, but its OA policy
needs tweaking to make it effective.