[GOAL] Fwd: Position on Public Access
Stevan Harnad
legislation. Everything he says is valid and true.
(But it would be just as valid if it were said on behalf of the (far more realistic
and demonstrable) need for "researcher access" as if it is said on behalf of
the (rather more idealogical and less realistic) need for "public access" --
though the latter, I know, is much more persuasive with MPs and voters,
and that's what counts...)
That niggle nigged, let me repeat that Mike will be remembered and thanked
historically for having said -- forthrightly, and with no self-serving obfuscation --
what all publishers should have been saying about OA all along.
Mike represents what is still honorable in the tradition of scholarly publishing.
Stevan
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Peter Suber <peter...@gmail.com>
> Date: March 26, 2012 8:47:46 PM EDT
> Subject: [BOAI] Position on Public Access
>
> [Forwarding from Mike Rossner at Rockefeller U Press, via Liblicense. --Peter Suber.]
>
>
> From: Mike Rossner <ros...@mail.rockefeller.edu>
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:32:38 -0400
>
> For the reference of Liblicense readers, the following letter was just
> sent to all Rockefeller University Press subscribers:
>
> Dear Librarian,
>
> I am writing to clarify the position of The Rockefeller University
> Press (RUP) on various legislative efforts regarding public access to
> publications resulting from federally funded research. RUP is a
> member of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the
> Association of American University Presses (AAUP), who have both
> recently provided position statements on this issue. However, RUP
> does not agree with those statements.
>
> RUP is a subscription-based publisher that publishes three biomedical
> research journals: The Journal of Cell Biology, The Journal of
> Experimental Medicine, and The Journal of General Physiology. We have
> released our back content to the public since 2001 – long before any
> federal mandates existed – because we believe we have an obligation to
> give something back to the public that funds the research we publish.
>
> The AAP supported the now-defunct Research Works Act. RUP strongly
> opposed that act.
>
> Both the AAP and AAUP have opposed the Federal Research Public Access
> Act (FRPAA), which has been re-introduced into both the House and
> Senate. Although numerous non-profit publishers signed the AAP letter,
> the RUP does not stand with those publishers. RUP supports FRPAA in
> principle. We know from the NIH public access policy that mandated
> access to the results of federally-funded research is necessary to get
> certain publishers to release this content to the public, and we
> support legislation to extend the NIH policy to other large federal
> funding agencies.
>
> The AAP and AAUP use a one-size-does-not-fit-all argument to oppose
> FRPAA because the drafted legislation calls for all large federal
> agencies to mandate public access six months after publication.
> Although it can be argued that a six-month embargo period may not be
> suitable for all disciplines covered by FRPAA, this is not grounds to
> oppose the legislation altogether. It should be supported in
> principle and could be modified during Congressional review to provide
> the flexibility for each agency to choose its own embargo period.
>
> The continuing rhetoric from the AAP and AAUP about having ongoing
> "conversations" about access to the results of publicly funded
> research is outdated. There is legislation on the table that will
> help to make public access a reality now.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Mike Rossner
> Executive Director
>
> These comments are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily
> reflect the position of The Rockefeller University.
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
> http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GO...@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Stevan Harnad
http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2012/03/rups-mike-rossner-doing-whats-right.html
Practically speaking, public access (i.e., free online access to research,
for everyone) includes researcher access (free online access to research
for researchers).
Moreover, free online access to research, for everyone, includes both public
access and researcher access.
So what difference does it make what you call it?
The answer is subtle, but important:
The goal of providing "public access to publicly funded research"
has a great deal of appeal (rightly) to both tax-paying voters and to politicians.
So promoting open access as "public access" is a very powerful and
effective way to motivate and promote the adoption of open access self-archiving
mandates by public research funders such as NIH and the many other federal
funders in the US that would be covered by the Federal Research Public
Access Act (FRPAA).
That's fine for publicly funded research.
But not all research -- nor even most research -- is publicly funded.
All research worldwide, however, whether funded or unfunded, originates
from institutions: The universal providers of research are the world's
universities and research institutes.
To motivate institutions to adopt open access self-archiving mandates
for all of their research output requires giving them and their researchers
a credible, valid reason for doing so.
And for institutions and their researchers, "public access to publicly
funded research" is not a credible, valid reason for providing open access
to their research output:
Institutions and their researchers know full well that apart from a few
scientific and scholarly research areas (notably, health-related research),
most of their research output is of no interest to the public (and often
inaccessible technically, even if accessible electronically).
Institutions and their researchers need a credible and valid reason for
providing open access to their research output.
And that credible and valid reason is so as to provided access for
all of the intended users of their research -- researchers themselves -- rather
than just those who are at an institution that can afford to subscribe to
the journal in which it was published.
Subtle, but important.
It has become obvious that the >75% of researchers who have not
been providing open access to their research for over two decades
now -- despite the fact that the Web has made it both possible and
easy for them to do so -- will not do so until and unless it is mandated.
That's why mandates matter.
The rationale for the mandate, however, has to be credible and valid
for all research and all researchers. "Public access to publicly funded research" is not.
But "maximize researcher access to maximize research uptake and impact" is.
And it has the added virtue of not only maximizing research usage,
applications and progress -- to the benefit of the public -- but public
access to publicly funded research also comes with the territory, as an added benefit.
So Mike Rossner is quite right that the two are functionally equivalent.
It is just that they are not strategically equivalent -- if the objective is
to convince institutions and their researchers that it is in their interest to
mandate and provide open access.
Stevan Harnad
Wilhelmina Randtke
Historically, researchers have been separated out from society, at least in part, by superior access to research facilities - so it's hard to do intense chemistry research without access to a laboratory and specialized equipment. I'm going to go as far as saying that access to a good lab and good research tools is more important than is a phd or any paper credential. That's still true, but maybe there is now a little bit of a reversal in what minimum technology is necessary in order to do research in a field. So, in 1850, maybe scientific tools were simpler to construct than in 1970. But, maybe now, and especially with 3D printers, there will be a back swing where it becomes easier and cheaper to construct tools for conducting original scientific research. This opens the exciting possibility that access to a lab and being inside the institution/corporation/government funding that lab won't be a prerequisite to participation.
By separating "researchers" from the public, you perpetuate this tie-in with scientific research to specific entities which fund research.
What I foresee in limiting access to researchers is arguments about who is a researcher, anger that private corporations might fit this definition while high schoolers working on science projects don't, and generally an entrenchment of access barriers which exist for good reason (scientific research equipment is expensive) but might disappear in the future.
If the general public really is not interested in accessing publicly funded research, then they won't access it. I suspect most people won't. I don't go reading PubMed abstracts for fun in lieu of watching sitcoms. However, by excluding the public, you exclude the very small minority of the public who want to read scientific research. This can be young people, too young to hold a phd, perhaps to young to hold a high school diploma, but who have advanced to a point where they can follow and build on high level research. This can be people suffering from a disease which gives them a burning desire to learn as much about that disease as is possible.
At the broad end, defining "researcher" as someone who is interested in researching the topic, might sweep these people in, but then doesn't access for researchers mean the same thing as access for the public? a member of the public becomes a researcher just by stepping forward and jumping into scientific papers.
I realize that the need to frame language in a way that gets support is important, but "public" is easier to define than "researcher". Even if access for researchers were an easier mandate to push through politically (which it might not be), if the goal is to avoid friction then maybe looking at the friction years out in defining and redefining researcher is something to consider.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
Peter Murray-Rust
Some comments on Richard Poynder's interview of Mike Rossner in "Open & Shut"
http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2012/03/rups-mike-rossner-doing-whats-right.html
Practically speaking, public access (i.e., free online access to research,
for everyone) includes researcher access (free online access to research
for researchers).
Moreover, free online access to research, for everyone, includes both public
access and researcher access.
P.
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
Stevan Harnad
Derek Law
not just one. When I publish LIS research I'm a researcher; when I write on my hobby - naval history - I'm an
amateur historian; when I work on Zooniverse projects I'm a citizen scientist. And yet the tools and techniques
I use are the same for each. Users CANNOT be pigeonholed simplistically, as they have complex interactions
with research.
Derek Law
________________________________________________________________________________________
Professor Derek Law
Turnbull Building
University of Strathclyde
155 George Street
Glasgow G1 1RD
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 141 548 4997
The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
Peter Murray-Rust
I think Peter raises a very valid point which has obsessed me for ages. Because we all occupy multiple spaces,
not just one. When I publish LIS research I'm a researcher; when I write on my hobby - naval history - I'm an
amateur historian; when I work on Zooniverse projects I'm a citizen scientist. And yet the tools and techniques
I use are the same for each. Users CANNOT be pigeonholed simplistically, as they have complex interactions
with research.
