News

Below, Les Carr, head of University of Southampton's Eprints team announces the results of a poll of EC F6 projects on the EC Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate proposal (A1). The results are as overwhelmingly positive as those of the parallel petition.

These results are to be announced in Brussels tomorrow (February 15).

On the same time day in the United States, there will be a "National Day of Action" by students in support of the FRPAA Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate Proposal.

On the eve of the Brussels EC meeting, the Budapest Open Access Initiative celebrates its fifth anniversary in Brussels:

---

The European research and academic community has demonstrated overwhelming support for the European Commission's proposed Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate (A1). A petition, launched jointly on January 14th 2007 by research organisations in a number of European countries, has drawn over 24,000 signatures from Europe and worldwide in support of the EC's proposal. The response includes over 1,000 institutional signatories from National Academies of Sciences, Universities, Rectors' conferences, Learned Societies, national and private research funding councils, and industries that apply research.)

In conjunction with the petition, a separate poll has been conducted of the EC Open Access Mandate's specific target constituency. The administrators of currently active EU FP6 projects were asked to register a vote FOR or AGAINST open access to research results. The result was overwhelming: 85.8% in favour of open access, 14.2% against (based on a healthy 8.22% response rate from 2652 email invitations to vote).

Previous research has demonstrated the increased impact that Open Access to Research Results offers the research industry. The petition and the poll demonstrate that Open Access now receives broad-based and popular support as a mainstream requirement of the European research industry.

Les Carr, EPrints, University of Southampton

"Journalists,
like moths and drunks,
seem attracted,
irresistibly,
where the light
shines, not
where the key lies"

CRITIQUE OF: Goldacre, Ben (2007) Open access and the price of knowledge. The Guardian, Saturday February 10, 2007. (Also appeared in badscience.net)

Ben Goldacre has his heart in the right place, but:

(1) The Open Access (OA) movement is not the "Open Access Journal movement."

Trying to convert non-OA journals to OA journals (and to convert authors to publishing in them) is only one of the two ways to make articles OA ("Gold OA"), and the far more resistant and less certain way. The surer, faster way is just to convert authors to self-archiving their own articles (published in whatever journal they wish) on the web to make them OA ("Green OA").

It is Green OA that can be and is being mandated by researchers' funding councils and employers (universities). The research community has just signed a petition in support of the European Commission's proposal to mandate Green OA (20,000 individuals, 1000 institutions). Similar movements are afoot in the US. And mandates are already in place in the UK.

(2) It is not "two [Gold] OA publishing organisations" that have led the fight for OA, but one (Green and Gold) organisation -- the same one that first coined the term OA in 2002: the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI).

(3) The need for access to "medical literature", and in "developing countries" is just one small portion of the need for OA, which concerns all forms of research, and researchers all over the world.

(4) The primary need for OA is to make research (most of it specialised and technical) freely available not only to "part-time tinkering thinkers, journalists and the public" but to the researchers worldwide for whom it was written and who can use and apply it to the benefit of the public that paid for it.

(5) To demonize non-OA publisher Reed-Elsevier as the "sponsor of the DSEI international arms fair [that] needs police, security, wire fences, and the pitbull of PR [Dezenhall] to defend it" is to sink into the very same pit-bull tactics.

Reed-Elsevier journals are Green on OA: It is research funders and universities that now need to mandate Green OA.

Journalists and tinkerers should think more carefully before opining about OA: Good science needs more sense, not more sensationalism.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

Three talks by Stevan Harnad at Indiana University on December 4-5:
(1) Maximising the Return on Resource Investment in Research at Indiana University by Mandating Self-Archiving
(2) Open Access Scientometrics
(3) Origins of Language
(Over a hundred thousand years ago, language evolved as a way of providing Open Access to the categories that human beings acquired. Publishing and providing online access to peer-reviewed research findings is just a natural -- indeed optimal and inevitable -- PostGutenberg upgrade of this ancestral adaptation.)

Richard Poynder has done it again: In his latest essay "Open Access: Beyond Selfish Interests" he characteristically takes the OA debate and developments several layers deeper than the one at which most of the usual suspects customarily think and reason. Not that I agree with his (implicit) conclusions (implicit, because, being a carefully dispassionate journalist, he does not actually express his opinions, though he most definitely has them!).

But I won't do a critique, because his essay is just too good to harry with niggles. Read it and make up your own mind. But please remember that Richard is not a researcher, salaried by an institution and funded by a grant to write up his findings. In short, this is not OA writing, but writing from which the author endeavours to earn his living. Yet Richard is performing an invaluable service for OA, and for the history of research communication and publication. He is taking a big risk by blogging his writing instead of selling it to a publisher. I hope his grateful readers will do the right thing beyond selfish interests. (Otherwise we risk losing this splendid resource, which would be -- dare I see it -- rather like the tragedy of the commons!)

Stevan Harnad
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/

Arthur Sale has received the University of Tasmania Vice-Chancellor's Award for Outstanding Community Engagement for a variety of achievements, among them for being:

an internationally recognised and respected contributor to the debate around free access to publicly funded research through the Open Access movement...

"I do not know how he finds time to do all he does ... I only know that as an ambassador for the University of Tasmania, he is internationally, nationally and locally known and respected."

Bravo, Arthur!

The Charleston Advisor Awards are given in ten standard categories and special one-time awards are periodically given and labeled as a "special award."

Non-Librarian Working for Our Cause (Special Award)

Peter Suber - for his excellent work in managing the influential SPARC Open Access Forum (blog) and the Open Access Newsletter.

Bravo, Peter!

From Peter Suber's Open Access News

1. Draft report from Australian government recommends OA mandate

The Australian Government Productivity Commission has released an important study, Public Support for Science and Innovation: Draft Research Report (November 2, 2006). (Thanks to Colin Steele.)

Excerpt:

Impediments to the functioning of the innovation system [:]....There is scope for the ARC and the NHMRC to play a more active role than they currently do in promoting access to the results of research they fund. They could require as a condition of funding that research papers, data and other information produced as a result of their funding are made publicly available such as in an "open access" repository.

The Australian Government has sought to enhance access to the results of publicly funded research through the:

- development of an Accessibility Framework for Publicly Funded Research; and

- allocation of funding under the Systemic Infrastructure Initiative to build technical information infrastructure that supports the creation, dissemination of and access to knowledge, and the use of digital assets and their management (box 5.10)....

In a recent report to DEST, Houghton et al. (2006) estimated net gains from improving access to publicly-funded research across the board and in particular research sectors (table 5.2).

- The estimated benefits from an assumed 5 per cent increase in access and efficiency and level of social rate of return were between $2 million (ARC competitively-funded research) and $628 million (gross expenditure on R&D).

- Assuming a move from this level of improved access and efficiency to a national system of institutional repositories in Australia over twenty years, the estimated benefit/cost ratios were between 3.1 (NHMRC-funded research) to 214 (gross expenditure on R&D)....

Of interest, is whether funding agencies themselves could become more actively involved in enhancing access to the results of the research they fund....

In their recent report to DEST, Houghton et al. (2006) made a number of suggestions to improve access to and dissemination of research including:

- developing a national system of institutional or enterprise-based repositories to support new modes of enquiry and research; ...

- ensuring that the Research Quality Framework supports and encourages the development of new, more open scholarly communication mechanisms, rather than encouraging "a retreat" by researchers to conventional publication forms and media, and a reliance by evaluators upon traditional publication metrics (for example, by ensuring dissemination and impact are an integral part of evaluation);

- encouraging funding agencies (for example, ARC and NHMRC) to mandate that the results of their supported research be made available in open access archives and repositories;

- encouraging universities and research institutions to support the development of new, more open scholarly communication mechanisms, through, for example, the development of "hard or soft open access" mandates for their supported research; and

- providing support for a structured advocacy program to raise awareness and inform all stakeholders about the potential benefits of more open scholarly communication alternatives, and provide leadership in such areas as copyright (for example, by encouraging use of "creative commons" licensing) (pp. xii-xiii)....

Several impediments to innovation should be addressed: ...

- published papers and data from ARC and NHMRC-funded projects should be freely and publicly available....

Comment [from Peter Suber]: It's important that this report was written by a government commission and important that it recommends an OA mandate.

From the file of preliminaries:

You are invited to examine this draft research study and to provide written submissions to the Commission. Submissions should reach the Commission by Thursday, 21 December 2006. In addition, the Commission intends to hold a limited number of consultations to obtain feedback on this draft.

The Commission intends to present its final report to the Government in early March 2007.

Email submissions to: Science@pc.gov.au

Locked Bag,
2 Collins Street
East Melbourne VIC 8003
Fax: (03) 9653 2303

[Peter Suber, Open Access News]

2. Another OA recommendation for Australia

The Australian government has published the report, Research Quality Framework: Assessing the quality and impact of research in Australia: The Recommended RQF, October 2006, which has been "endorsed by the Development Advisory Group for the RQF". (Thanks to Colin Steele.)

Excerpt:

5.3. The RQF Information Management System is to be developed recognising that the Australian Government announced the RQF in conjunction with the Accessibility Framework in May 2004 as part of the Backing Australia's Ability - Building our Future through Science and Innovation package.

The purpose of the Research Accessibility Framework is to ensure that information about research and how to access it is available to researchers and the wider community. This is particularly true of publicly-funded research; as a general proposition, it should be accessible to the public.

There's an article about the report in the November 15 issue of The Australian, but it doesn't mention the OA recommendation.

Comment [by Peter Suber]: This OA recommendation converges beautifully with the OA recommendation from study by the Australian Government Productivity Commission (blogged here yesterday). The odds that Australia will adopt an OA mandate for publicly-funded research have to go up as more official commissions deliver the same message.

[Peter Suber: Open Access News]

See Peter Suber's Open Access News, 12 Nov 2006.
      Perhaps a grocer was not the best equipped to appreciate the difference between research and retail...
      Bravo to 5 of the 8 UK Research Councils for honouring the difference just the same! Let's hope the US will have the good sense to do likewise with the FRPAA, and Europe, with EC Recommendation A1.

Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads:
"Lord Sainsbury on the RCUK OA Proposal: Drubbing Peter to Pox Paul (began: Nov 2004) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum