[Humanist] 26.376 alternative publishing & open access

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Sat Oct 13 10:12:23 CEST 2012


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 376.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Daniel Allington <daniel.allington at open.ac.uk>            (55)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 26.371 alternative publishing

  [2]   From:    Marin Dacos <marin.dacos at openedition.org>                (113)
        Subject: Open Edition Academic Committee's statement on Open Access


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:04:33 +0100
        From: Daniel Allington <daniel.allington at open.ac.uk>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 26.371 alternative publishing
        In-Reply-To: <20121012045435.00DE7F91 at digitalhumanities.org>


This is very laudable, but the single comment on that THE story (from a reader calling him- or herself 'Counterpunch') points out why it can't work from the point of view of an early career academic:

"At the moment ayone who wants a job or promotion would be insane to give their book to open publishers - it'd get (unfairly) sneered at by powers-that-be. The only people who could get away with it are those senior people cited here who are beyond caring because they are already at the top of their fields."

Shortlisting panels and appointments committees loyally seek to secure for their kindhearted employers the candidates with the books with the 'best' publishers. Does anyone doubt that in the eyes of the powers-that-be, the candidate with the CUP book 'beats' the candidate with (say) the Routledge book, while the candidate with the Routledge book 'beats' (say) the candidate with the Trentham book? And does anyone have any serious doubts about where open access publishers are going to fit into that hierarchy?

As a means of assessing the quality of somebody's scholarship, this is wrong. It's wrong and it's unfair and it's hidebound and it's counterproductive.

But if a recent PhD graduate told me he or she was thinking of sending his or her book to an open access publisher, I'd advise him or her to think again (unless, of course, it was his or her intention to leave academia altogether). To be honest, I think I'd find it pretty hard to sleep that night if I didn't.

Best wishes

Daniel

On 12 Oct 2012, at 05:54, Humanist Discussion Group wrote:

>                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 371.
>            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
>                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
>                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
> 
> 
> 
>        Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:28:10 +0100
>        From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk>
>        Subject: alternative publishing
> 
> 
> Hard on the heels of the open letter from the President of the Royal 
> Historical Society that my colleague Andrew Prescott forwarded via 
> Humanist comes a brief note from one of our new PhD students, Samuel 
> Moore, as follows:
> 
>> I'm writing with my Open Book Publishers hat on. I wasn't sure
>> whether this was suitable for dissemination through the Humanist
>> list, but Paul Jump has just written a nice story on us in THE -
>> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=421432&c=1
>> .
> 
> As you will see Mr Jump explicitly uses the Finch Report to highlight 
> what Open Book is doing. And I can say as one who has published an 
> edited collection with this publisher and then recommended the same 
> to the editor of a collection for which I have written, Open Book is doing a 
> splendid job.
> 
> Yours,
> WM
> -- 
> Willard McCarty, FRAI / Professor of Humanities Computing & Director of
> the Doctoral Programme, Department of Digital Humanities, King's College
> London; Professor, School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics,
> University of Western Sydney; Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
> (www.isr-journal.org); Editor, Humanist
> (www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/); www.mccarty.org.uk/




--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:50:53 +0200
        From: Marin Dacos <marin.dacos at openedition.org>
        Subject: Open Edition Academic Committee's statement on Open Access 
        In-Reply-To: <20121012045435.00DE7F91 at digitalhumanities.org>


*** Attachments:
    http://www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist/Attachments/1350057421_2012-10-12_humanist-owner@lists.digitalhumanities.org_6567.2.pdf


Dear colleagues,

As you already know, the European commission has decided to support Open
Access. The UK gave an answer with the Finch Report.

The OpenEdition Academic committee has decided to publish a statement about
Open Access to contribute to this debate. We do not think that the Gold
Open Access should be the only and main road to Open Access. We would like
to support the green road and to promote a third road, called Platinum.

The statement is here : http://oep.hypotheses.org/103 (EN).

Best regards,
Marin Dacos
Director - Center for open electronic publishing (Cleo)

OpenEdition Academic Committee’s statement on Open Access

Within the framework of the Assises de l’enseignement supérieur et de la
recherche, the OpenEdition Academic Committee at the Centre for Open
Electronic Publishing wishes to draw the French government’s attention to
the issue of Open Access in academic literature.
Open Access benefits all

It is our firm belief that Open Access to academic research results
represents a huge progress for society as a whole. Open Access is a highly
effective and fair system as it facilitates access to research results for
both researchers and lay people the world over. The direct benefits for
academic progress, knowledge and society are plain to see. In the
humanities and social sciences, comprising a range of disciplines which
contribute to our understanding of the complex societies in which we live,
Open Access to research results is also essential, for the development of
our societies and for the cultural enhancement of all. Open Access also
encourages the influence of research beyond national and disciplinary
boundaries. Finally, as most research is funded by public money, it is
necessary that this collective investment can be made public as quickly and
as efficiently as possible.

The Progress of Open Access

The European Union has understood these issues and has undertaken to
promote Open Access, which it considers a major asset for continent-wide
innovation and, thus, as a lever for improving the efficiency of its
investments in the research sector. It supports two approaches: the *green
road*, represented by HAL in France, the system of open archives where
researchers deposit their works in full text and make them accessible to
all. This solution has enabled thousands of articles in all disciplines to
be made available on Open Access. We too support this approach. However, it
cannot be the only strategy to be developed.

The second approach is the *gold road*. Following the Finch report, the
United Kingdom has decided to invest massively in this approach. Once, *Open
Access Gold* simply referred to publications – journals and books –
published on Open Access. Gradually this definition has altered and now
refers to the fast developing “author-pay” business model, where authors,
research centres or their financing bodies meet publication costs (varying
from $1000-$5000/article). This mechanism has become widespread in certain
disciplines, but we do not believe it is the most conducive to the progress
of academic knowledge.

   - It ties ability to publish to the financial capabilities of
   researchers, their laboratories or establishments;
   - The mechanism itself incites publishers to increase the number of
   publications, whereas, traditionally, their mission and business model was
   based on choice and the selection of the best articles or books;
   - The editorial ecosystem ultimately depends on a relationship between
   the author, or financing institution, and the publisher which is too
   exclusive. The readership and their representatives, especially libraries,
   who traditionally make selections from a publisher’s range, are
   marginalised.

*We believe in a third road for Open Access. *The *platinum* road creates a
form of Open Access publishing that enables authors to publish and readers
to read without financial obstacles. The various existing modes to finance
such a model are listed in the Open Access Directory. We favour a hybrid
model, the *Freemium model*, where texts are Open Access but a collection
of value-added services may be purchased. It is to this end that, in 2011,
OpenEdition launched OpenEdition* Freemium* for journals, and late 2012,
launched a *Freemium* book service (OpenEdition Books). Readers,
publishers, and libraries have welcomed the proposal, and initiatives based
on the same principle, but with different modus operandi, have also
emerged, proof that the idea is catching on. The*Freemium* model is at the
heart of the OpenEdition future investment project selected by the French
government for funding for the next eight years to come.

*The OpenEdition Academic Committee*

Claire Lemercier, Philippe Cibois, Sylvain Piron, Patrice Bellot, Florence
Bouillon, Chérifa Boukacem, Marin Dacos, Björn-Olav Dozo, Éric Duchemin,
Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, Hubert Guillaud, Pierre-Cyrille Hautcoeur, Jean
Kempf, Octavio Kulesz, Joëlle Le Marec, Antónia Lima, Pierre Mercklé,
Pierre Mounier, Natalie Petiteau, Jean-Christophe Peyssard, Laurent Romary,
Sophie Roux, Hervé Théry, Milad Doueihi, Claudine Moulin.
 TO FIND OUT MORE

   - The European Commission’s position in 2012 : Towards better access to
   scientific information:  Boosting the benefits of public investments in
   research”

 http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/era-communication-towards-better-access-to-scientific-information_en.pdf<http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/era-communication-towards-better-access-to-scientific-information_fr.pdf>

   - Finch report: “Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to
   expand access to research publications”

http://www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch

   - Budapest Open Access Initiative 10 years

 http://www.soros.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations<http://www.soros.org/openaccess/boai-10-translations/french>

   - List of different Open Access business models listed by the Open
   Access Directory

http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_book_business_models

   - OpenEdition and OpenEdition *Freemium*

http://www.openedition.org/6438
http://www.openedition.org/8699
French version

http://leo.hypotheses.org/9953

-- 
Marin Dacos - http://www.openedition.org
Director - Centre for Open Electronic Publishing

** OpenEdition is now a Facility of
Excellence http://www.openedition.org/10221?lang=en
* *(Equipex) **
** New email : marin.dacos at openedition.org **

CNRS - EHESS - Aix-Marseille Université (AMU) - Université d'Avignon
3, place Victor Hugo, Case n°86, 13331 Marseille Cedex 3 - France
Tél : 04 13 55 03 40 Tél. direct : 04 13 55 03 39 Fax : 04 13 55 03 41
Skype : marin.dacos - Gmail video chat : marin.dacos at gmail.com
Twitter : http://twitter.com/#!/marindacos





More information about the Humanist mailing list