[A2k] A New Future for Scholarly Communications: Open Access

[Nicholas MacGowan von Holstein]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Story from www.educationload.com:   Institutional repositories were a topic
of concern, and the stated topic for a
workshop<http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~repwkshop/index.html>that convened
in Phoenix, Arizona earlier this year. The National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the United Kingdom's Joint Information Systems
Committee (JISC) conducted the workshop.   In their report on the workshop,
*The Future of Scholarly Communication: Building the Infrastructure for
Cyberscholarship* <http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~repwkshop/NSF-JISC-report.pdf>,
Bill Arms and Ron Larsen have other major concerns. However, institutional
repositories remain a topic of discussion. Without institutional
repositories, cyberscholarship will not be able to approach its full
potential.   Institutional repositories allow institutions and faculty to
offer unending access to digital files. These files tend to be scholarly in
nature, and can be articles, books, or images that the faculty have
published or written. These repositories are large libraries that provide
reliable and comprehensive access to scholarship for the world.   Additiona=
lly,
these repositories allow for free access to scholarship. This is
diametrically opposite from most publisher's viewpoints. Publishers tend to
require payment in order to access publications that contain research they
have not conducted or financially supported.   The dream of those who
advocate for institutional repositories is that academics will place all of
their work there =96 allowing free access for all. One of the sites to do s=
o
is www.twidox.com.   Repositories offer one model of a future for libraries=
,
faculty and academic institutions. The paying model (which is the current
model) represents another.   By aggregating the faculty scholarly works, an
institution could export faculty scholarship to other institutions. It woul=
d
allow libraries to focus on access, rather than the collection of, scholarl=
y
works. However, it is likely that each academic institution would not be
able to maintain the services needed for each separate discipline. Rather,
specialized libraries would tend to occur (as Michael Lesk suggests in his
paper here <http://www.academiccommons.org/commons/essay/michael-lesk>).
  There
has, unfortunately, been little real global success for the repository
movement. Libraries have failed to provide repository services of compellin=
g
interest, and have failed to articulate what services they can provide.
Repository efforts have been small and fragmented. They are local projects
that are not compatible with other local projects. Administrators have no
show leadership on this issue. Rather, they have happily complained about
the exorbitant prices publishers charge. They have not done one thing that
could lead to a serious change: such as implementation of repositories with
appropriate policies in place (such as a policy that states only
publications in the institutional repository with an open access license ca=
n
count for tenure, promotion, and yearly reviews).   Faculty would object to
such a policy. However, they have failed to look beyond the immediate
future. Faculty verbally welcome initiatives to open access to all scholarl=
y
works without payment, but actively oppose any meaningful action to make
this dream a reality.



The NSF/JISC report skips over this repository impasse. Instead, it
describes a broader vision of the environment that it is possible to
develop. Libraries and institutions can muddle through with variations on
the publisher-centred distribution model. However, intellectual life
increasingly depends on open access to large bodies of data that can be
worked on by machines. Existing distribution channels cannot support this
type of distribution.



The report presents a large picture viewpoint. It states that there must be
an environment in which open access becomes a principle for intellectual
life. The more pervasive that principle becomes the greater pressure for
instruments to meet that principle, such as repositories. The report
summarizes the goal of the project around which the workshop was created:

 *To ensure that all publicly-funded research products and primary resource=
s
will be readily available, accessible, and usable via common infrastructure
and tools through space, time, and across disciplines, stages of research,
and modes of human expression.*

* *

In order to accomplish this goal, the report details a seven-year plan. The
plan includes such actionable as:



   - *Infrastructure:* to develop and deploy a foundation for scalable,
   sustainable cyberscholarship
   - *Research:* to advance cyberscholarship capability through basic and
   applied research and development
   - *Behaviours: *to understand and incentivize personal, professional and
   organizational behaviours
   - *Administration:* to plan and manage the program at local, national an=
d
   international levels

For members of the science, technology, engineering, and medical fields, th=
e
situation is promising. This report encourages the NSF to take the lead. If
the NSF does not pursue the plan as detailed in the report, they do
have an Office
of Cyberinfrastructure
<http://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=3DOCI>responsible for such issues
and has a large budget to deal with such issues.
In the United Kingdom, humanists may be reasonably optimistic, since JISC
supports all academic disciplines with a healthy budget. Academics in the
United States face a more uncertain future, as there is no agency
responsible for implementation of such procedures.

Share by:


Nicholas MacGowan von Holstein (BA, LL.M.)

Co-founder



twidox GmbH

Bierstadter Strasse 17

65189 Wiesbaden =95 Germany



+49 (611) 360877 22 _ Phone

+49 (611) 360877 25 _ Fax

+49 (176) 234989 36 _ Mobile



mailto:nicholas@twidox.com <nicholas@twidox.com>

http://www.twidox.com



http://blog.twidox.com

http://educationload.com