Re: Forthcoming OA Developments in France

[Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>]

I meant that I didn't see why it is considered a step forward. 
Without some consistent link from a search engine, I suspect 
researchers don't see the point.  (Are there data on how often 
archived papers are accessed ?). If a paper isn't accessible, 
researchers tend to write to the authors who will send you a pdf 
(legally or otherwise).  Also, I think the idea that you can't 
post the final version seems ridiculous to most people but, of 
course, that gets back to the global question.

Richard D. Feinman, Professor of Biochemistry


Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sent by: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject Re: Forthcoming OA Developments in France

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Richard Feinman wrote:

> I don't understand self-archiving.

Please let me explain it to you: It is researchers making the 
final refereed drafts of their own published articles freely 
accessible on the web for those would-be users who cannot afford 
access to the publisher's version.

      Self-Archiving FAQ
      http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/

> Isn't that another bizarre practice of having the author assume
> a task which should be done by the publisher.

Not in the least. The publisher implements the peer review, 
performs the copy-editing, markup, composition, printing and 
distribution, in print and on paper.  In exchange, he receives 
subscription revenue. It is not the publisher's task to provide 
access to those who cannot afford his product. If the author 
wants those potential users to have access too, he needs to 
provide it. But all it costs is a few minutes and keystrokes per 
paper, and what it brings is substantially more usage and impact:

      Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2005) Keystroke Economy: A Study of the
      Time and Effort Involved in Self-Archiving.
      http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10688/

      Bibliography of Findings on the Open Access Impact Advantage
      http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html

> Does it not highlight the intent of publishers to reduce access
> to the author's article.  Are they not saying: sure we'll
> publish it but if you want everybody to be able to read it you
> have to take care of that.

Nothing of the sort. The head-shaker is not that publishers won't 
do it for authors. (It's more than enough if publishers simply 
give author self-archiving their green light, as the publishers 
of 94% of journals already do -- and if they do not lobby against 
research-funder self-archiving mandates.)

      http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php

The real head-shaker is that, despite the substantial benefits to
them, only 15% of researchers self-archive spontaneously. This is
why self-archiving mandates were needed. Fortunately, the
mandates are coming, at long last:

      Swan, A. (2005) Open access self-archiving: An Introduction.
      Technical Report, JISC.
      http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/

      UK (RCUK): http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/
      EC:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf

      US (FRPAA):
http://cornyn.senate.gov/doc_archive/05-02-2006_COE06461_xml.pdf

Stevan Harnad