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

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

I do not for a minute believe that institutional repositories have been
started because of pressure from many academics. I am sure "some"
academics were interested and even keen in most or even all cases. The
quotation I used gave the impression that there was a general movement
among academics. Does anyone deny that this quotation conveyed this
impression?

My assertion is that university bureaucrats are not acting, where they are
acting, because they are responding to the views of the academic body and
in order to improve scholarly communication. I was present at a talk by
the CEO of Imperial College London about a year ago. He had been fed SPARC
slides by his librarian. I taxed him afterwards over the content of his
slides. He admitted that he did not subscribe to all the "facts" in them
but told me that it did not matter what the academic community wanted. He
actually said this. Other influential people in the JISC hierarchy in the
UK have made similar statements to me privately.

His job was to save money. He had been convinced that OA would save money.
It was a matter of cost-effectiveness

I know there are those who would claim that there is no evidence that OA
will save money and indeed studies have shown increased costs to be the
case for research rich institutions. However this new message does not
seem to have got through to the people with power.

Of course my quotation from the JISC report was selective but not
incorrect. I did not select to misrepresent. There is a distinction. I was
certainly not arguing that this was the message of the report which was
concerned with how to achieve OA.


Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: ""FrederickFriend"" <ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: Berlin-3 Open Access Conference, Southampton, Feb 28 - Mar 1
2005

> 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