Re: Berlin-3 Open Access Conference, Southampton, Feb 28 - Mar 1 2005

[adam hodgkin <adam.hodgkin@gmail.com>]

I have a sneaking suspicion that whoever coined the term 'institutional
repository' was trying to sabotage the concept. The word 'institution' has
connotations of starched white aprons, thin soup and handcuffs; and the
verb 'to consign' is somehow the only verb that I can confidently and
voluntarily associate with a 'repository'.

But joking aside, I cant agree with Joe and Anthony that there is not
clear evidence of a definite demand for Open Access publishing amongst
academics. Some academics care so strongly about it that they have become
full-time (or nearly full-time) advocates. One can respect that, as one
expects them to maintain standards of objectivity in their advocacy. I
thought it interesting that some of the research Harnad cited in his
recent communication to this list, appeared to be quite neutral and in
parts negative on the importance of OA for the academics surveyed
(researchers care much more about the reputation of the journal in which
they might publish than about whether it is freely accessible, not a
surprising fact, but well covered in the Hajjem research).

http://www.crsc.uqam.ca/lab/chawki/Auto-archivaeuqam.pdf

But if we think that scholars and academics do not care about the openness
and accessibilty of their publications I recommend that one looks again at
the October 2003 howl of protest from Donald Knuth, who is by common
acceptance a giant in his field (computer science) and a great advocate of
the importance of scholarly publishing.

http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/joalet.pdf

When a great scientist and a great author gets this cross one surely needs
to think again about the practice he seeks to consign to oblivion (oh yes
that's the other place where things get consigned to).

Adam

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:01:34 EST, Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anthony Watkinson is of course correct that few scholars have expressed
> much interest in institutional repositories.  I think this is a shame,
> but there you are.  What I continue to find baffling is the belief (not
> held by Mr. Watkinson, of course) that there is a pent-up demand for
> Open Access and that only money-grubbing publishers are getting in the
> way. Many, perhaps most, publishers are attempting to accommodate OA in
> some fashion; librarians appear to be supportive, also (though I
> continue to find it hard to imagine a librarian's role in a world with
> extensive OA and Google).  But authors?  By and large, they are not
> interested, with important exceptions acknowledged.  Precisely why
> Professor Harnad believes that mandated self-archiving represents a show
> of support is a mystery to me.  To "green" and "gold" OA, we now have
> the Eat-Your-Vegetables OA:  Do it because it is good for you.
> 
> Advocates of OA would be advised to focus less on new business models
> and more on new businesses.  Such businesses would add value to authors,
> who would engage these services not out of altruism but out of
> self-interest. Coming up with these new businesses will require
> imagination and daring. What the OA movement needs is entrepreneurs, not
> institutional mandates.
> 
> Joe Esposito