So you are one of the few people in the world who are unacquainted with Stevan Harnad's opinion whether OA should go Gold or Green . . . you must be tuned with anticipation for any disclosure he might make here as the ELPUB closing keynote. Before I disclose I'd like to extend our best to his Mom who is ill in Montreal, which prevented him from making a live appearance here in Toronto. We hope she is feeling comfortable Stevan. And I'd like to remark that Stevan is probably one of the few in research out there who would make a comment like, "Could you possibly remove my face from my slide?" The rest are seeking to strengthen their imprimatur on their work and he is trying to erase it !?! (There was a video feed that kept messing up so Les Carr positioned the slides on the full screen where Stevan could see . . . but his Skype (?) feed was super-imposed over a section).
And now they big disclosure . . . Harnad suggests/recommends/is solely convinced!! that Green should in all ways and in all cases precede Gold with respect to OA'd research. The rationale: the research is 100% in the hands of researchers ("in their fingers") and can be self-archived (Green) straight away . . . while Gold requires the persuading of publishers, persuading of authors and the need to pay $$ for submission to these environments (Stevan would rather see that money stay directed toward the research itself). what struck me was the amount of research undertaken to prove this point (convincingly, I might suggest): There's Peter Hirst (2006 and graph) and Harnad (2007 ~ How come I can't find this one Stevan? 'Request a copy' Sci Editor 50(10): 500-510 ) , Carr and Harnad (2005) and of course Elma Swan (2005) . . . how's that for upping the bibliometrics . . .!!
The point there is whether Eve Gray and colleagues could have benefited from those R-dollars that just confirm #-crunching and done something viable with edu or health care in the South? But perhaps the whole "positive feedback" loop that launched Stevan's PP about metrics and mandates (mandates increase metrics which reward mandates) is an important step (?) to convince researchers to publish their findings so they can benefit communities . . . not simply to promote and sustain their own interests . . .
Maybe its just the 3 days of intensive study (rehearsing the efforts of what local communities have been doing to try to push for OA in Js and Rs, with all the streamlining of protocols, advocacy efforts, mandate successes, etc. etc.) that make me wonder what all this intensive effort needs to be made around
Repositories
+ Incentives
+ Mandates
to get the high depository rates that we all long to see in the end. That's not to say the Stanford announcement, as well as the NIH mandate and Stevan's reference to a Finnish mandate, all which bring the totals to 46, are not important details. I'm just trying to wrap my librarian-in-training head around why people wouldn't want to get their stuff out there and accessible. Has the individualism so intruded our best intentions that we can't even sense this sublime/and obvious error of our ways.
That publishers are making huge profits on research that should be directed toward the public good (has anyone done a study of how much Big Publishing Co's have invested in research as a "payment in thanks" for all these fees they charge libraries for access to the research that was often conducted in their very institutions . . .?) and somehow we need to soft-peddle our way around policies and strategies to get some of this in IRs . . . its no wonder Stevan says Green before Gold. Its your stuff, researchers! drop it in the box and lets see how it works toward tending the world's woes. I'm going to bed, maybe I'll feel a little softer tomorrow.
And now they big disclosure . . . Harnad suggests/recommends/is solely convinced!! that Green should in all ways and in all cases precede Gold with respect to OA'd research. The rationale: the research is 100% in the hands of researchers ("in their fingers") and can be self-archived (Green) straight away . . . while Gold requires the persuading of publishers, persuading of authors and the need to pay $$ for submission to these environments (Stevan would rather see that money stay directed toward the research itself). what struck me was the amount of research undertaken to prove this point (convincingly, I might suggest): There's Peter Hirst (2006 and graph) and Harnad (2007 ~ How come I can't find this one Stevan? 'Request a copy' Sci Editor 50(10): 500-510 ) , Carr and Harnad (2005) and of course Elma Swan (2005) . . . how's that for upping the bibliometrics . . .!!
The point there is whether Eve Gray and colleagues could have benefited from those R-dollars that just confirm #-crunching and done something viable with edu or health care in the South? But perhaps the whole "positive feedback" loop that launched Stevan's PP about metrics and mandates (mandates increase metrics which reward mandates) is an important step (?) to convince researchers to publish their findings so they can benefit communities . . . not simply to promote and sustain their own interests . . .
Maybe its just the 3 days of intensive study (rehearsing the efforts of what local communities have been doing to try to push for OA in Js and Rs, with all the streamlining of protocols, advocacy efforts, mandate successes, etc. etc.) that make me wonder what all this intensive effort needs to be made around
Repositories
+ Incentives
+ Mandates
to get the high depository rates that we all long to see in the end. That's not to say the Stanford announcement, as well as the NIH mandate and Stevan's reference to a Finnish mandate, all which bring the totals to 46, are not important details. I'm just trying to wrap my librarian-in-training head around why people wouldn't want to get their stuff out there and accessible. Has the individualism so intruded our best intentions that we can't even sense this sublime/and obvious error of our ways.
That publishers are making huge profits on research that should be directed toward the public good (has anyone done a study of how much Big Publishing Co's have invested in research as a "payment in thanks" for all these fees they charge libraries for access to the research that was often conducted in their very institutions . . .?) and somehow we need to soft-peddle our way around policies and strategies to get some of this in IRs . . . its no wonder Stevan says Green before Gold. Its your stuff, researchers! drop it in the box and lets see how it works toward tending the world's woes. I'm going to bed, maybe I'll feel a little softer tomorrow.
posted by librarymann at
9:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home