Major EU Funded Nanotube Research Group, DESYGN-IT, Publish in AZoJono - The Open Access Online Nanotech Journal
SYDNEY, Australia, Nov. 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Open access online journal,
AZoJono* (The AZo Journal of Nanotechnology Online) has released a special
nanotubes research edition in conjunction with DESYGN-IT*, an EU funded
collaborative research project that has been investigating the design,
synthesis, growth and application of nanotubes, nanowires and nanotube
arrays for industrial applications.
URL for special edition
[http://www.azonano.com/nanotechnology%20journal.asp]
DESYGN-IT, is a collaborative research project between a number of
Universities and SME partners from several of the member states of the EU.
The AZoJono special edition comprises seven research articles that
focus on cutting edge carbon nanotube research, in particular the
characterisation of nanotubes and their products. Applications areas
discussed include the lithographic stamping of computer chips, connector
wires for computer chips, flat screen displays, catalysts, electrodes,
nanowires, miniature actuators and reinforced composite materials.
Professor Werner Blau from Trinity College Dublin, a leader in carbon
nanotube research and the DESYGN-IT project co-ordinator stated, "We are
very pleased to be able to release these papers online through the open
access journal, AZoJono. For some time now, I've been well aware of how
effective AZoJono is at distributing the latest Nanotech research findings
to a large global audience."
AZoNano.com Chief Editor David Freund commented, "It is very pleasing
to see the recognition that AZoJono is now receiving from leading Nanotech
researchers such as the DESYGN-IT team. Some of our most popular Nanotech
papers have now received over 40,000 page views and an involvement with
groups such as DESYGN-IT confirms that AZoJono's open access approach using
our patented OARS (Open Access Author Rewards) system is starting to gain
some significant traction as a highly successful mechanism for researchers
to broadcast their findings to the global Nanotech community."
About DESYGN-IT
Members of DESYGN-IT include Trinity College Dublin, National
University of Ireland Cork, Jozef Stefan Institute, University of Ulster,
Queen Mary and Westfield College, Queen University Belfast,
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, University of Cambridge, Toughglass, Sensor
Technology & Devices, Mid Sweden University, Ntera, Mo6 and University of
Latvia.
About AZoJono
AZoJono - The AZo Journal of Nanotechnology Online
[http://www.azonano.com/nanotechnology.asp] is published online at
AZoNano.com - The A to Z of Nanotechnology - a site operated by AZoNetwork,
Sydney Australia [http://www.azonetwork.com]. AZoJono publishes high
quality articles and papers on all aspects of nanotechnology.
CONTACT:
Dr. Ian Birkby
AZoNetwork
Tel: +61-2-9999-0070
Fax: +61-2-9999-0071
e-mail: ianbirkby@azonetwork.com
SOURCE AZoNetwork
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Major EU Funded Nanotube Research Group, DESYGN-IT, Publish in AZoJono - The Open Access Online Nanotech Journal
Demands diluted for open access health research - SciDev.Net
Demands diluted for open access health research - SciDev.Net
Demands diluted for open access health research
Supporters of open access believe it is the only way to get information to all those who need it.
Katherine Nightingale
19 November 2007
Source: SciDev.NetRevised guidelines by an international committee could threaten efforts to persuade the WHO to freely disseminate findings from government-funded health research projects.
Supporters of an 'open access' policy had a clause inserted to that effect in an earlier version of the committee's guidelines.
But the most recent draft, which will be submitted to the World Health Assembly next year, states that open access should merely be "strongly encouraged".
The WHO Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property, comprising member states of the WHO, suspended discussions at their second session last week (10 November) in Geneva, Switzerland.
The group aims to prepare a global strategy on essential health-research issues that disproportionately affect developing countries.
There was no mention of open access in their original draft, released in July. Statements on open access as a requirement were inserted later, in the 'Rio text' — a sub-regional consensus document from 14 Latin American countries — at a meeting on 3–5 September.
Open access publishing makes electronic forms of scientific papers freely available on the web. Its advocates say this is the only way to get information to all who need it.
But critics argue that publishers will lose vital revenue and that compensation measures, such as payment frompublishing authors for the option, could hinder release of information by authors in developing countries.
Supporters of open access claim the wording change dashes an opportunity for the WHO to promote it in the developing world.
"Strong encouragement does not work: we already know this from the failure of other non-mandatory policies, whether by researchers' funders or researchers' employing institutions," Stephen Harnad, professor of Cognitive Science, Electronics and Computer Science at the UK-based University of Southampton, told SciDev.Net.
"The only thing that works is a mandate. The WHO could have helped accelerate open access momentum, but if it does not upgrade again to a mandate recommendation, it will either not help, or it may even reduce momentum," he adds.
"The WHO have immense opportunities to benefit health in the poorest nations and if they put their considerable influence and resources into open access, things would progress far faster," says Barbara Kirsop of the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development.
"It is only too clear that if there is just a 'request' to deposit research publications in open access institutional repositories, it won't work as scientists are just interested in the next bit of research and forget all about ways to increase the impact of their work," she adds.
"Fortunately, because establishing open access institutional repositories, for example, is so low-cost, things are moving ahead anyway, particularly in Latin America."
Demands diluted for open access health research - SciDev.Net
FirstScience - SAGE and Hindawi announce landmark open access agreement
FirstScience - SAGE and Hindawi announce landmark open access agreement
SAGE and Hindawi announce landmark open access agreement
- 20 Nov 2007By SAGE Publications
Page 1 of 2
November 20, 2007 – SAGE and the Hindawi Publishing Corporation have today entered into an agreement to jointly launch and publish a suite of fully Open Access (OA) journals.
This is a bold strategic partnership that places SAGE as the largest academic publisher to develop a collection of Gold Open Access journals, marking the company’s continued investment in widening access to important scholarly research. SAGE is the world’s fifth largest journal publisher, with over 485 journals in the humanities, social sciences, science, technology, and medicine.
The initiative further strengthens Hindawi’s leadership in developing a strong portfolio of Open Access journals. Hindawi currently publishes more than 100 Open Access journals covering a wide range of subjects in science, technology, and medicine.
The partnership will see equal ownership between the two organizations. SAGE will have sole responsibility for the editorial development, marketing, and promotion of the new journals while Hindawi will provide the technology and expertise needed to run the publication process from the point of submission, through the peer-review process, to the point of final publication. Under the model, all SAGE-Hindawi journal articles will be made freely available online via the Hindawi platform, funded by author charges.
“SAGE is committed to maintaining innovative publishing models for the benefit of the academic community, in keeping with our vision to be the natural home for authors, editors and societies,” commented Blaise Simqu, CEO, SAGE. He continued, “SAGE is in a unique position as a growing STM publisher, allowing us to explore and actively experiment without posing a threat to our existing business models.
FirstScience - SAGE and Hindawi announce landmark open access agreement
“Our position as a leading independent publisher enables us to respond to the changing needs of our authors, editors and societies, helping them to reach broader communities, and maximize the impact of their work. Hindawi is an ideal partner for SAGE, being able to offer a highly effective publishing system that will allow us to focus on our longstanding reputation for high quality marketing and editorial expertise, while offering a viable option for disseminating open, unrestricted access to research.”
“We are delighted to be working with SAGE on this joint initiative,” said Ahmed Hindawi, CEO of Hindawi Publishing Corporation. “Hindawi currently has a very successful Open Access journal collection, which is quite solid both academically and financially, and SAGE’s strong market presence and expertise will enable us to further expand our Open Access offerings to the scientific communities we serve.”
###
SAGE is a leading international publisher of journals, books, and electronic media for academic, educational, and professional markets. Since 1965, SAGE has helped inform and educate a global community of scholars, practitioners, researchers, and students spanning a wide range of subject areas including business, humanities, social sciences, and science, technology and medicine. An independent company, SAGE has principal offices in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore. For more information, please visit: www.sagepub.com
Hindawi Publishing Corporation is a rapidly growing open access publisher, with offices in Cairo, Egypt. Hindawi currently publishes more than 100 fully Open Access journals covering a wide range of subjects in Science, Technology, and Medicine. The company’s web site is located at www.hindawi.com.
The SAGE-Hindawi platform will be launched at Online Information 2007, December 4-6 in London. More information on the SAGE-Hindawi initiative is available at www.sage-hindawi.com, along with a sign-up for the latest news about the initiative.
FirstScience - SAGE and Hindawi announce landmark open access agreement
FirstScience - SAGE and Hindawi announce landmark open access agreement
SAGE and Hindawi announce landmark open access agreement
- 20 Nov 2007By SAGE Publications
Page 1 of 2
November 20, 2007 – SAGE and the Hindawi Publishing Corporation have today entered into an agreement to jointly launch and publish a suite of fully Open Access (OA) journals.
This is a bold strategic partnership that places SAGE as the largest academic publisher to develop a collection of Gold Open Access journals, marking the company’s continued investment in widening access to important scholarly research. SAGE is the world’s fifth largest journal publisher, with over 485 journals in the humanities, social sciences, science, technology, and medicine.
The initiative further strengthens Hindawi’s leadership in developing a strong portfolio of Open Access journals. Hindawi currently publishes more than 100 Open Access journals covering a wide range of subjects in science, technology, and medicine.
The partnership will see equal ownership between the two organizations. SAGE will have sole responsibility for the editorial development, marketing, and promotion of the new journals while Hindawi will provide the technology and expertise needed to run the publication process from the point of submission, through the peer-review process, to the point of final publication. Under the model, all SAGE-Hindawi journal articles will be made freely available online via the Hindawi platform, funded by author charges.
“SAGE is committed to maintaining innovative publishing models for the benefit of the academic community, in keeping with our vision to be the natural home for authors, editors and societies,” commented Blaise Simqu, CEO, SAGE. He continued, “SAGE is in a unique position as a growing STM publisher, allowing us to explore and actively experiment without posing a threat to our existing business models.
FirstScience - SAGE and Hindawi announce landmark open access agreement
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Linux.com :: Open Access bill vetoed
Linux.com :: Open Access bill vetoed
Open Access bill vetoed
By Bruce Byfield on November 16, 2007 (3:00:00 PM)
Supporters of the open access movement (OA), the open-source-inspired community that promotes free access to academic research, are disappointed but not discouraged by the defeat of a bill that would have required research published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States to be available to the public. Instead, they see the bill as an important step in raising awareness about OA among American legislators and the general public. Nor do they rule out the eventual passage of the OA provisions.The bill in question is the Labor, Health, and Human Services (LHHS) Appropriations Act, 2008, or HR 3043, which set a budget of $606 billion for spending in these areas. Among the dozens of provisions in the bill was the statement that:
The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.The bill was vetoed by President George W. Bush on November 13. The reason for the veto was not the OA provision, which was not mentioned in his explanation of the move, but rather the proposed funding for what Bush described as "wasteful projects" such as a prison museum, a sailing school, and a program for teaching Portuguese as a second language. Funding for stem cell research, which was expected to be a reason for the veto, had already been removed from the bill.
In contrast to Bush's statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described LHHS as "a bipartisan and fiscally responsible bill."
The veto was widely seen by both the mainstream media and OA supporters such as blogger Peter Suber and Matt Cockerill of Biomed Central, the world's largest OA publisher, as part of Bush's ongoing budget struggle with the Democratic majority in the Congress and the Senate. As Cockerill puts it, considering the recent power struggles between the White House and Congress, everyone was "very much forewarned" of the veto.
The bill returned to Congress on November 16 for a vote to overturn the presidential veto. The vote did succeed, and a revised appropriations bill is now in the works. Whether that revised bill will include the OA provision is still uncertain.
Implications
Obviously, the policy of NIH, one of the largest funders of research in the world, has a wide influence, and passage of the bill would probably have encouraged OA support elsewhere in the world. However, disappointment over the bill's failure is muted by the fact that the provision for OA in HR 3043 was relatively mild, as Suber points out.
Similarly, Cockerill notes that policies in such countries as the United Kingdom and Germany are in many cases already in advance of the proposed NIH policy. "This is just one facet of the overall trend to OA," he says.
Both Suber and Cockerill saw reason for optimism. Suber points out that despite intensive lobbying by publishers' groups such as PRISM, a proposed amendment by the White House that would have limited the OA language to ensure that the NIH policy did not undermine peer review or copyright did not survive.
Similarly, two amendments by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), one to delete the OA provision and the other to dilute the language, were also defeated. Both amendments, Suber suggests, may have been inspired by Reed Elsevier, one of the largest academic publishers in the United States and one of Inhote's top financial supporters.
"It's very clear, and a matter of public record, that a good deal of money is spent by the publishers on lobbying about issues like this," Cockerill says. "But clearly in this case that wasn't enough to block the move toward increasing OA in research. The strength of feeling in government and among the research community has been able to overcome that strong lobby.
Just as importantly, Cockerill suggests that the three-year history of the effort to pass the NIH initiative into law has resulted in increasing awareness of OA among researchers, academic administrators, and elected officials. "The high profile of this bill has certainly kept OA in people's attention." he says. "A lot of the support for OA has been coming, not just from those directly involved in the research community, but also those who have an interest in medical research -- patients, disease-interest groups, taxpayers, and people who have an interest from a lay person's point of view. I think it has been very good in continuing to further awareness of OA."
Cockerill says that the rise of the Internet has increased the demand for accessibility in general. People, he says, are asking, "Who benefits from freezing access to data? Is it the public, or is it only special interest groups who want to maintain the status quo? That question is arising in many situations."
As one proof of the increased awareness, Cockerill cites a recent student forum he attended at Harvard Medical School. Several years ago, he suggests, such a forum would probably have debated the merits of OA. Now, the debate is over the most practical steps needed to implement it. Increasingly, the basic desirability of OA is being taken for granted.
At any rate, as Suber predicted before these events in the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, the OA provision stands a strong chance of being revived. Suber notes that a modified version of LHHS is required to fund the related government departments in 2008, and that the NIH proposal has a good chance of being included in the revised appropriations bill.
"OA has always had strong bipartisan support, and we depended on Republicans as well as Democrats this year for the strong votes in each house," Suber writes. "We particularly depended on Republican support to help prevent the publishing lobby from inserting a stronger objection to the NIH policy." In the long run, then, perhaps not only the war but this particular battle may still be won.
Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com and IT Manager's Journal.
OA As "Research Spam": II - Open Access Archivangelism
OA As "Research Spam": II
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Joseph Esposito wrote:
"Hey, Stevan, come off it. Read the article. Once again you pick a fight when I mostly agree with you."I was commenting on your interview rather than your article, but if you insist, here goes. The comments are much the same. I think we are galaxies apart, Joe, because you keep on imagining that OA is about unrefereed peer-to-peer content, whereas it is about making all peer-reviewed journal articles freely accessible online:Comments on: Esposito, J. (2007) Open Access 2.0: The nautilus: where - and how - OA will actually work. The Scientist 21(11) 52.open access does not appear to increase dissemination significantly... [because] Most researchers are affiliated with institutions, whether academic, governmental, or corporate, that have access to most of the distinguished literature in the field.Strongly disagree. You think there is little or no access problem; user surveys and library budget statistics suggest otherwise.Thus, though there may be some exceptional situations, especially in the short term, the increased dissemination brought about by open access takes place largely at the margins of the research community.Strongly disagree. On the contrary, it is the top 10-20% of articles -- the ones most users use and cite -- that benefit most from being made OA. (They receive 80-90% of the citations.)Another important reason open access does not significantly increase dissemination is that attention, not scholarly content, is the scarce commodity. You can build it, but they may not come.Strongly disagree. To repeat, OA is about published journal articles; so making them free online merely adds to whatever access they enjoy already.It is one thing to write an article and upload it to a Web server somewhere, where it will be indexed by Google and its ilk. It is fully another thing for someone to find that article out of the growing millions on the Internet by happening upon just the right combination of keywords to type into a search bar.Strongly disagree, and this is the heart of the equivocation. You are speaking here about self-publishing of unrefereed, unpublished papers, whereas OA is about making published, peer-reviewed articles OA -- whether by publishing them in an OA journal or by self-archiving them in an OA Institutional Repository (IR).
The very same indices and search engines that find the published articles will find the OA ones too, because making them OA is just an add-on to publishing them in the first place. It is only because you keep seeing the OA papers as not being peer-reviewed and published, Joe, that you give yourself and others the impression that there is an either/or here -- when in reality OA is about both/and.Would you rather double the amount of published information available to you, or increase the amount of time you have to review information you can already access by one hour a day? We are awash in information, but short on time to evaluate it. Open access only worsens this by opening the floodgates to more and more unfiltered information.This is a false opposition: OA is about accessing all journal articles, not just the minority that your institution can afford. If there are too many articles and too little time, affordability is surely not the way to cope with it! Let it all be OA and then decide how much of it you can afford the time to read. The candidates are all available via exactly the same indexes and search engines. The only difference is that without OA, many are inaccessible, whereas with OA they all are.open access is most meaningful within a small community whose members know each other and formally and informally exchange the terms of discourse.You are again thinking of direct, peer-to-peer exchange of unrefereed content, whereas OA is about peer-reviewed, published journal articles, irrespective of community size. (The usership of most published research journal articles is very small.)Many of the trappings of formal publishing are of little interest to many tight-knit communities of researchers. Who needs peer review, copy editing, or sales and marketing?I agree about not needing the sales and marketing, and perhaps the copy editing too; but since OA is about peer-reviewed journal articles, the answer to that is: all users need it.what of the work for which there is little or no audience? What if there is simply no market? This is the ideal province of open access publishing: providing services to authors whose work is so highly specialized as to make it impossible to command the attention of a wide readership.Most journal articles have little or no audience. This is a spurious opposition. And we are talking about OA, not necessarily OA publishing.the innermost spiral of the shell of a nautilus, where a particular researcher wishes to communicate with a handful of intimates and researchers working in precisely the same area. Many of the trappings of formal publishing are of little interest to this group. Peer review? But these are the peers; they can make their own judgments.The peers are quite capable of making the distinction between one another's unrefereed preprints and their peer-reviewed journal articles; and the difference is essential, regardless of the size of the field. OA is not about dispensing with peer review. It is about maximizing access to its outcome.the next spiral is for people in the field but not working exactly on the topic of interest to the author; one more spiral and we have the broader discipline (e.g., biochemistry); beyond that are adjacent disciplines (e.g., organic chemistry); until we move to scientists in general, other highly educated individuals, university administrators, government policy-makers, investors, and ultimately to the outer spirals, where we have consumer media, whose task is to inform the general public.I can't follow all of this: It seems to me all these "spirals" need peer-reviewed content. There is definitely a continuum from unrefereed preprints to peer-reviewed postprints -- I've called that the "Scholarly Skywriting" continuum -- but peer-review continues to be an essential function in ensuring the quality of the outcome, and certifying it as worth the time to read and the effort of trying to build upon or apply.Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry. Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in Current Contents 45: 9-13, November 11 1991).not all brands are created equal.That's what journal names, peer-review standards and track records are forWhatever the virtues of traditional publishing, authors may choose to work in an open-access environment for any number of reasons. For one, they simply may want to share information with fellow researchers, and posting an article on the Internet is a relatively easy way to do thatAgain the false opposition: It is not "traditional publishing" vs. an unrefereed free-for-all. OA is about making traditionally peer-reviewed and published articles free for all online.(I think some of the funding agencies have been misinformed about the benefits of open access, and they certainly have been misinformed about the costs, especially over the long term, but it certainly is within the prerogatives of a funding agency to stipulate open-access publishing.)The funding agencies are mandating OA, not OA publishing. They have been correctly informed about the benefits of OA (it maximizes research access, usage and impact); the costs of IRs and Green OA self-archiving are negligible and the costs of Gold OA publishing are irrelevant (since OA publishing is not what is being mandated).
Whether in the long term mandated Green OA will lead to a transition to Gold OA is a matter of speculation: No one knows whether or when. But if and when it does, the institutional money currently paying for non-OA subscriptions will be more than enough to pay for Gold OA publishing (which will amount to peer review alone) several times over.open access would be useful for: an article that may have been rejected by one or more publishers, but the author still wants to get the material "out there";No, OA is not for "research spam" (as you called it, more candidly, in your Interview): OA is for all peer-reviewed research; all 2.5 million articles published in all 25,000 peer-reviewed research journals, in all disciplines, countries and languages, at all levels of the journal quality hierarchy.an author who may be frustrated by the process and scheduling of traditional publishers;Authors can certainly self-archive their preprints early if they wish,
but OA begins with the refereed postprint (and that can be self-archived on the day the final draft is accepted).an author who may have philosophical reservations about working with large organizations, especially those in the for-profit sector, not to mention deep and growing suspicions about the whole concept of intellectual property.I am not sure what all that means, but it's certainly not researchers' primary motivation for providing OA, nor its primary benefit.A reason to publish in an open-access format need not be very strong, as the barriers to such publication are indeed low. It takes little: an Internet connection, a Web server somewhere, and an address for others to find the material.Again, the equivocation: There is no "OA format." The target content is published, peer-reviewed journal articles, and OA means making them accessible free for all online. Peer-to-peer exchange of unrefereed papers is useful, but that is not what OA is about, or for.Over time the list of invited readers may grow, and some names may be dropped from the list. The author, in other words, controls access to the document. This access can be extended to an academic department or to the members of a professional society; access can be granted to any authenticated directory of users.This is all just about the exchange of unrefereed content. It is not about OA.At some point the author may remove all access restrictions, making the document fully open access.Making unrefereed content freely accessible online is useful, but it is not what OA is about.It is a matter of debate as to whether any of these steps, including the final one, constitutes "publication," but it is indisputable that access can be augmented and that the marginal cost of doing so approaches zero. Providing free online access to unrefereed, unpublished content is not what OA is about, or for.The fundamental tension in scholarly communications today is between the innermost spiral of the nautilus, where peers, narrowly defined, communicate directly with peers, and the outer spirals, which have been historically well-served by traditional means. Open-access advocates sit at the center and attempt to take their model beyond the peers.There is no tension at all. Unrefereed preprints, circulated for peer feedback, are and have always been an earlier embryological stage of the publication continuum, with peer-review and publication the later stage. OA does not sit at the center. It is very explicitly focused on the published postprint, though self-archiving the preprint is always welcome too.
Now, Joe, can we agree that we do indeed disagree?
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Publishing Management Consultant: "Open Access Is Research Spam" - Open Access Archivangelism
Publishing Management Consultant: "Open Access Is Research Spam"
Joseph Esposito is an independent management consultant (the "portable CEO") with a long history in publishing, specializing in "interim management and strategy work at the intersection of content and digital technology."
SUMMARY: Joseph Esposito, a management consultant, says Open Access (OA) is "research spam." But OA's explicit target content is all 2.5 million peer-reviewed articles published annually in the world's 25,000 peer-reviewed research journals. (So either all research is spam or OA is not spam after all!).
Esposito says researchers' problem isn't access to journal articles (they already have that): rather, it's not having the time to read them. This will come as news to the countless researchers worldwide who are denied access daily to the articles in the journals their institution cannot afford, and to the authors of those articles, who are losing all that potential research impact.
Search engines find it all, tantalizingly, but access depends on being able to afford the subscription tolls. Esposito also says OA is just for a small circle of peers: How big does he imagine the actual usership of most journal articles is?
Esposito applauds the American Chemical Society (ACS) executives' bonuses for publishing profit, even though ACS is supposed to be a Learned Society devoted to maximizing research access, usage and progress, not a commercial company devoted to deriving profit from restricting research access only to those who can afford to pay them for it (and for their bonuses).
Esposito describes the efforts of researchers to inform their institutions and funders of the benefits of mandating OA as lobbying, but he does not attach a name to what anti-OA publishers are doing when they hire expensive pit-bull consultants to spread disinformation about OA in an effort to prevent OA self-archiving from being mandated. (Another surcharge for researchers, in addition to paying for their bonuses?)
Esposito finds it tautological that surveys report that authors would comply with OA mandates, but he omits to mention that over 80% of those researchers report that they would self-archive willingly if mandated. (And where does Esposito think publishers would be without existing publish-or-perish mandates?)
Esposito is right, though, that OA is a matter of time -- but not reading time, as he suggests. The only thing standing between the research community and 100% OA to all of its peer-reviewed research article output is the time it takes to do the few keystrokes per article it takes to provide OA. That is what the mandates (and the metrics that reward them) are meant to accomplish at long last.
In an interview by The Scientist (a follow-up to his article, "The nautilus: where - and how - OA will actually work"), Esposito says Open Access (OA) is "research spam" -- making unrefereed or low quality research available to researchers whose real problem is not insufficient access but insufficient time.
In arguing for his "model," which he calls the "nautilus model," Esposito manages to fall (not for the first time) into many of the longstanding fallacies that have been painstakingly exposed and corrected for years in the self-archiving FAQ. (See especially Peer Review, Sitting Pretty, and Info-Glut.)
Like so many others, with and without conflicting interests, Esposito does the double conflation (1) of OA publishing (Gold OA) with OA self-archiving (of non-OA journal articles) (Green OA), and (2) of peer-reviewed postprints of published articles with unpublished preprints. It would be very difficult to call OA research "spam" if Esposito were to state, veridically, that Green OA self-archiving means making all articles published in all peer-reviewed journals (whether Gold or not) OA. (Hence either all research is spam or OA is not spam after all!).
Instead, Esposito implies that OA is only or mainly for unrefereed or low quality research, which is simply false: OA's explicit target is the peer-reviewed, published postprints of all the 2.5 million articles published annually in all the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals, from the very best to the very worst, without exception. (The self-archiving of pre-refereeing preprints is merely an optional supplement, a bonus; it is not what OA is about, or for.)
Esposito says researchers' problem is not access to journal articles: They already have that via their institution's journal subscriptions; their real problem is not having the time to read those articles, and not having the search engines that pick out the best ones.
Tell that to the countless researchers worldwide who are denied access daily to the specific articles they need in the journals to which their institution cannot afford to subscribe. (No institution comes anywhere near being able to subscribe to all 25,000, and many are closer to 250.)
And tell it also to the authors of all those articles to which all those would-be users are being denied access; their articles are being denied all that research impact. Ask users and authors alike whether they are happy with affordability being the "filter" determining what can and cannot be accessed. Search engines find it all for them, tantalizingly, but whether they can access it depends on whether their institutions can afford a subscription.
Esposito says OA is just for a small circle of peers ("6? 60? 600? but not 6000"): How big does he imagine the actual usership of most of the individual 2.5 million annual journal articles to be? Peer-reviewed research is an esoteric, peer-to-peer process, for the contents of all 25,000 journals: research is conducted and published, not for royalty income, but so that it can be used, applied and built upon by all interested peer specialists and practitioners, to the benefit of the tax-payers who fund their research; the size of the specialties varies, but none are big, because research itself is not big (compared to trade, and trade publication).
Esposito applauds the American Chemical Society (ACS) executives' bonuses for publishing profit, oblivious to the fact that the ACS is supposed to be a Learned Society devoted to maximizing research access, usage and progress, not a commercial company devoted to deriving profit from restricting research access only to those who can afford to pay them for it.
Esposito also refers (perhaps correctly) to researchers' amateurish efforts to inform their institutions and funders of the benefits of mandating OA as lobbying -- passing in silence over the fact that the real lobbying pro's are the wealthy anti-OA publishers who hire expensive pit-bull consultants to spread disinformation about OA in an effort to prevent Green OA from being mandated.
Esposito finds it tautological that surveys report that authors would comply with OA mandates ("it's not news that people would comply with a requirement"), but he omits to mention that most researchers surveyed recognised the benefits of OA, and over 80% reported they would self-archive willingly if it was mandated, only 15% stating they would do so unwillingly. (One wonders whether Esposito also finds the existing and virtually universal publish-or-perish mandates of research institutions and funders tautological -- and where he thinks the publishers for whom he consults would be without those mandates.)
Esposito is right, though, that OA is a matter of time -- but not reading time, as he suggests. The only thing standing between the research community and 100% OA to all of its peer-reviewed research output is the time it takes to do a few keystrokes per article. That, and only that, is what the mandates are all about, for busy, overloaded researchers: Giving those few keystrokes the priority they deserve, so they can at last start reaping the benefits -- in terms of research access and impact -- that they desire. The outcome is optimal and inevitable for the research community; it is only because this was not immediately obvious that the outcome has been so long overdue.
But the delay has been in no small part also because of the conflicting interests of the journal publishing industry for which Esposito consults. So it is perhaps not surprising that he should perceive it otherwise, unperturbed if things continue at a (nautilus) snail's pace for as long as possible...
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access ForumPosted by Stevan Harnad in Publishing Lobby at 11:24 | Comments (0)
Publishing Management Consultant: "Open Access Is Research Spam" - Open Access Archivangelism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)