[Humanist] 25.410 open access

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Mon Oct 24 09:48:53 CEST 2011


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 25, No. 410.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Charles Muller <acmuller at l.u-tokyo.ac.jp>                 (41)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.406 "open" access

  [2]   From:    Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca>    (311)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.406 "open" access


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 17:51:32 +0900
        From: Charles Muller <acmuller at l.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.406 "open" access
        In-Reply-To: <20111022080430.4D2A91DF898 at woodward.joyent.us>

Andrew Prescott, responding to the problem presented by Willard, wrote:

> It is remarkable that humanities scholars are ignoring fundamental debates
> about the future structure of scholarly communications. I think the RIN
> report makes it clear that it will be very difficult for scholars to vote
> with their servers but the implications of this then become very
> convoluted and we start to see a very confused landscape for scholarly
> publication. Likewise, the debates around the repository movement also
> seem to have passed many scholars by - the way in which PhD theses for
> example are now available very rapidly from repositories mean that the
> idea of the first monograph, a traditional stepping stone in a young
> scholar's career, is now becoming redundant, but we haven't revised our
> expectations.

This also hearkens back to the message expressed by Joe Raben in his 
keynote at DH2010 in which he bemoaned the fact that despite the 
relatively long history of DH as a "field", and the rapid 
proliferation of tools and mechanisms that could easily serve the 
purpose for gathering, organizing, and publishing "new content," 
relatively little responsibility seems to have been taken by 
humanities scholars to direct and manage the publication of their 
own new content online. On one hand, we turn the responsibility over 
to Wikipedia and Google. Or, on the other hand, to Oxford, Brill, 
TaylorFrancis, and so on.

If we compare this situation with that of the development of 
applications and methodologies for corpus analysis, markup, 
databasing, aggregation--the more mechanical aspects of this 
field--the difference is huge. I don't know what it will take to 
change this trend, but I would like to say that I am trying to do my 
part.

Chuck

-------------------

A. Charles Muller

University of Tokyo
Graduate School of Humanities and Sociology, Faculty of Letters
Center for Evolving Humanities
7-3-1 Hongō, Bunkyō-ku
Tokyo 113-0033, Japan

Web Site: Resources for East Asian Language and Thought
http://www.acmuller.net

<acmuller[at]jj.em-net.ne.jp>

Mobile Phone: 090-9310-1787

Twitter @acmuller4



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 12:31:53 -0400
        From: Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.406 "open" access
        In-Reply-To: <20111022080430.4D2A91DF898 at woodward.joyent.us>


Allow me to bring back a note of optimism about all this.

The major obstacles to Open Access in the humanities are due to the
greater symbolic value granted to books, and the frequent economic
fragility of journals in the humanities.

This said, if you consult the list doaj (http://www.doaj.org), you will
find a fair number of Open Access journals.

The European Commission has funded OAPEN (http://www.oapen.org) which
has placed quite a few books in Open Access. Other presses, such as that
of Australian National University or the HSRC in South Africa, as well
as Athabasca University in Canada, have published OA monographs.

Neither should we forget the Open Humanities Press
(http://openhumanitiespress.org/) with which I am associated. The
University of Michigan Library and Press also collaborate with OHP,
thanks to Paul Courant's leadership, well supported by several worthy
colleagues at U. Mich.

The portal RedALyC in Mexico hold several hundreds of titles of
journals, many of which are in the humanities, and they are OA.
(http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/). Of course, this is all in Spanish... But
Spanish is an important world language, probably more important than
French nowadays.

SciELo also holds resources in the humanities, although it concentrates
on the natural sciences (http://www.scielo.org)

The French portal revues.org also hold several OA journals
(http://www.revues.org/). Its affiliated site "hypothèses" is worth
mentioning in passing as it is a place where researchers publish their
research agenda (research area and associated questions):
http://hypotheses.org/ 

The "Author Pay" strategy will not work easily in the humanities, and
the extensions of Springer's "Open Choice" even less. This is due to the
ways in which humanities research is supported in our (OECD-type)
countries. However, on the other side of the medal, governmental
subsidies for journals are sometimes aware of the needs of OA journals.
In Canada, for example, subsidies are on the basis of a flat rate per
article ($850.00), and many journmals find this sufficient to publish in
open access. Incidentally, I recently chaired a SSHRC jury allocating
grants to about 50 journals and we found enormous disparities in the
ratio cost/article from one journal to the next.

In short, the problem may also lie in the fact that the digital
humanities communities do not strongly overlap with the OA communities,
even though OA can exist only in digital form. But OA is about archiving
and publishing, while the digital humanities are more about
computer-assisted analyses of documents and data of all kinds.

Best regards,

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le samedi 22 octobre 2011 à 08:04 +0000, Humanist Discussion Group a
écrit : 

> Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 25, No. 406.
>             Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                        www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                 Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> 
> 
> 
>         Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:09:13 +0100
>         From: "Prescott, Andrew" <andrew.prescott at kcl.ac.uk>
>         Subject: Re: [Humanist] 25.405 "open" access?
>         In-Reply-To: <20111021074839.F3B151DE3F5 at woodward.joyent.us>
> 
> Dear Willard,
> 
> I share your concerns, but what strikes me more is how humanities scholars
> seem largely to have failed to engage with the vigorous debate which has
> taken place in the libraries and research council world, over precisely
> these issues over the past couple of years. The upshot appears to be that
> institutions are expected to manage these costs, but this message once
> again does not seem to have penetrated as far as many senior arts faculty
> managers. Good starting points in this discussion is the current AHRC
> guidance (www.ahrc.ac.uk/.../access%20to%20research%20outputs.pdf) and a
> report from the excellent Research Information Network
> (http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/hea
> ding-open-road-costs-and-benefits-transitions-s).
> 
> It is remarkable that humanities scholars are ignoring fundamental debates
> about the future structure of scholarly communications. I think the RIN
> report makes it clear that it will be very difficult for scholars to vote
> with their servers but the implications of this then become very
> convoluted and we start to see a very confused landscape for scholarly
> publication. Likewise, the debates around the repository movement also
> seem to have passed many scholars by - the way in which PhD theses for
> example are now available very rapidly from repositories mean that the
> idea of the first monograph, a traditional stepping stone in a young
> scholar's career, is now becoming redundant, but we haven't revised our
> expectations. The lesson of all this is to my mind is that we need to
> build much closer links with the librarians who are at the coal face in
> mediating provision of access to digital scholarship.
> 
> Andrew
>   
> Professor Andrew Prescott
> Department of Digital Humanities
> King's College London
> 28-29 Drury Lane
> London WC2B 5RL
> 
> http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/ddh/
> 
> On 21/10/2011 08:48, "Humanist Discussion Group"
> <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> >
> >                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 25, No. 405.
> >            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
> >                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
> >                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> >
> >
> >
> >        Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:39:15 +0100
> >        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
> >        Subject: "open" access
> >
> >I am informed automatically by the journals division of Oxford
> >University Press that OUP has established an "open access model", known
> >as Oxford Open:
> >
> >> Through this initiative, authors of accepted papers will
> >> be given the option of paying an open access publication
> >> charge to make their paper freely available online
> >> immediately via the journal website, meaning that readers
> >> will not need a journal subscription to view open access
> >> content.
> >
> >While, as the Editor of a journal myself, I appreciate that publishers
> >must charge for what they publish, it does seem to me to be a misuse of
> >language to call this model "open". It is actually a "prepaid
> >option".
> >
> >Some of you will know the model is taken directly from the
> >sciences, where authors build publication charges into their
> >grant-applications. Rarely, or only sometimes, can we in the humanities
> >do that. Furthermore, since the practice of putting (actually or
> >nominally) penultimate versions online is quite common, I do wonder
> >about the wisdom of creating such a model for the underfunded
> >researchers in our field. They will vote with their websites.
> >
> >The charges are hardly trivial. See
> >http://www.oxfordjournals.org/oxfordopen/charges.html.
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> >Yours,
> >WM
> >-- 
> >Professor Willard McCarty, Department of Digital Humanities, King's
> >College London; Professor (fractional), University of Western Sydney;
> >Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (www.isr-journal.org); Editor,
> >Humanist (www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/); www.mccarty.org.uk/


-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal


More information about the Humanist mailing list