Re: Berlin-3 Open Access Conference, Southampton, Feb 28 - Mar1 2005

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

I have not detected any groundswell of grass-roots interest for open
access in clinical medicine. I have repeatedly raised it with several
editorial boards, whose reactions range from indifference to hostility. It
seems that most of the interest comes from the basic sciences. It would be
interesting to see data comparing perceptions of open access in clinical
and basic fields.

Also, it is a little amusing that the OA movement is so often described as
"grass roots." Grassroots implies a spontaneous bubbling up of interest
from individuals with shared interests and outlook. The OA movement has
been more of a top-down phenomenon, pushed by a very well funded and
expertly crafted advocacy campaign and propagated by a news media that has
largely suspended any critical judgment of OA assumptions. If the Dean
campaign was a grassroots movement and the Bush campaign a Rovian top-down
juggernaut, OA owes much more to the Bushies than the Deaniacs.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk 2/16/2005 7:09:08 PM >>>

Anthony Watkinson under-estimates the extent of grass-roots academic
support for open access and the extent to which academic leaders
understand the advantages to research undertaken by their own institutions
from the development of repositories or from publication in OA journals.
Journals converting to an open access business model are doing so with
support from their editors and authors. These changes in scholarly
communication are very new and it is no surprise that many authors are
still uncertain about the long-term effect upon their careers, but the
evidence from the Key Perspectives surveys is that those who use open
access publication routes are satisfied enough to use them again. A small
sample can be just as valid as a large sample if the statistical structure
is sound. Anthony's own sample quotation from the JISC "Delivery
management and access" report is itself very selective and arguably not
representative of the report as a whole.

To answer Anthony's specific question: every university repository has
been established because the university has heard from some of its staff
that this would be a desirable development and, after looking at the costs
and benefits, has concluded that this would be good for the university.
 
Universities do not take decisions by popular vote but equally they do not
commit resources unless they are convinced that a development will be good
for research and teaching. Most universities wish to take decisions in
consultation with their staff and in relation to repositories they are
finding general support.

Fred Friend
JISC Consultant