Public awareness of the OA movement

Mon Aug 27 07:07:19 EDT 2012

I quite agree that there are important metric issues with OA, begnning with how many articles are being published, or archieved, and where? Is this simple information available anywhere? I cannot find it.

My original objection was to Arun's advocacy of OA, which I do not share in the case of mandatory OA. Do we want to debate policy here, as opposed to metrics?

David

Sent from my IPad

On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:19 AM, K S Chudamani <ksc at LIBRARY.IISC.ERNET.IN> wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> 
> 
> 
> pricing of journals is an important issue, as for as libraries are concerned. It is an issue for sigmetrics as we evaluate productivity, effectiveness, etc based on number of articles, number of uses(citations). Why can't we look at these from the point of view of cost of an article, cost of citations, etc.
> 
> Chudamani
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Isidro F. Aguillo wrote:
> 
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> In my humble opinion this is a true Sigmetrics issue as bibliometrics (publishing in journals with a high impact factor) is one of the main reasons (perhaps the only reason) why the authors are signing contracts transferring their rights to the publishers, as usually the perceived that OA alternative journals have not the same value for evaluation purposes (my personal experience with authors from different countries). In my personal view OA status should be considered as an important indicator when building journal rankings.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> 
>> El 25/08/2012 3:30, David Wojick escribió:
>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>> Stevan, you seem to have missed the word mandatory in my 7 word sentence.
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> Sent from my IPad
>>> 
>>> On Aug 24, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Stevan Harnad <harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK
>>> <mailto:harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>> wrote:
>>> >  Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >  http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >  <http://web.utk.edu/%7Egwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
>>> >  On 2012-08-24, at 11:48 AM, David Wojick wrote:
>>> > > >  I am not sure this is a sigmetrics issue.
>>> > >  David is right. Publisher prices are not a sigmetrics issue -- but OA, >  and OA metrics, certainly are.
>>> > > >  I regard mandatory green OA as theft.
>>> > >  And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal subscription prices >  to be extortion.
>>> > >  But that's not a sigmetrics issue either.
>>> > >  It is a fact, however, that subscription publishing is paid for in full, >  and fulsomely, by institutional subscriptions. So when an author >  supplements subscription access by self-archiving a Green OA copy of the >  final draft for those would-be users whose institutions cannot afford >  subscription access, the publication costs are already fully covered by >  subscriptions. Perhaps it is for this reason that over 60% of journals >  already recognize their authors' right to provide immediate Green OA, >  and most of the remaining recognize it after an embargo. I don't think >  they are recognizing "theft"; rather, they are endorsing necessity, not >  that the online medium has made OA possible.
>>> > >  Stevan
>>> > > >  On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon > >  <jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA > >  <mailto:jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >  Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > >  http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > >  <http://web.utk.edu/%7Egwhitney/sigmetrics.html> The "OA idea" is > > >  much broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even > > >  "Gold OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most > > >  common mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's > > >  recent book, Open Access, on this topic.
>>> > > > > > >  Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet > > >  Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also > > >  includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide > > >  gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least > > >  gratis) access to readers.
>>> > > > > > >  As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, > > >  speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into the > > >  service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse.
>>> > > > > > >  Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is > > >  not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various > > >  degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a > > >  topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For > > >  example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in part > > >  because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to quality, > > >  but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS  One, by contrast, > > >  offers a good example of a publishing platform where the only > > >  criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of its > > >  dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far from > > >  being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection process > > >  guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly > > >  difficult to achieve. It already exists.
>>> > > > > > >  Jean-Claude Guédon
>>> > > > > > >  Le vendredi 24 août 2012 à 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a écrit :
>>> > > > >  Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > >  http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > >  <http://web.utk.edu/%7Egwhitney/sigmetrics.html> Dear Subbiah,
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently > > > >  two things happened which made me aware that there are > > > >  disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met > > > >  an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had > > > >  discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had > > > >  decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in > > > >  his country would not always have the funding to pay the author > > > >  fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such > > > >  as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that > > > >  there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to > > > >  scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this > > > >  adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses).
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and > > > >  other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA > > > >  shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the > > > >  medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and > > > >  this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences > > > >  smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues > > > >  of policy making and research management). Those without an > > > >  institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired > > > >  scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is > > > >  much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to > > > >  develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous > > > >  contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in > > > >  non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it > > > >  seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can > > > >  publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for > > > >  (potentially) policy reasons.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very > > > >  different issue.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Best wishes,
>>> > > > > > > > >  Loet
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > >  Loet Leydesdorff
>>> > > > > > > > >  Professor, University of Amsterdam
>>> > > > >  Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
>>> > > > >  Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
>>> > > > >  Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
>>> > > > >  loet at leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet at leydesdorff.net> ; > > > > http: //www.leydesdorff.net/ ; > > > > http: //scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  *From:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics > > > >  [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Subbiah > > > >  Arunachalam
>>> > > > >  *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM
>>> > > > >  *To:* SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU > > > >  <mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
>>> > > > >  *Subject:* [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > > > >  http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > > > >  <http://web.utk.edu/%7Egwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
>>> > > > > > > > >  Friends:
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Please see the Economist debate on academic journals > > > >  [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >  It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear > > > >  indication that the general public (at least the segment that > > > >  reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least > > > >  interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of > > > >  paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I > > > >  think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and > > > >  redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open > > > >  access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of > > > >  rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to > > > >  the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, > > > >  Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large > > > >  scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are > > > >  the keys to the success of the OA movement.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Regards.
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  Arun
>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 