2012/2/1 Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
Hi Andrea,
could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit
from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to
know)
Hi Lodewijk,
thanks for the engaging question ;-)
Boycotting non-OA journals is not what I had in mind (as others explained),
here the aim is to point as Elsevier as an example of a wicked system.
Free knowledge could benefit from a renewed scholarly publishing world,
in which every research would be open to the public to be read and studied,
and the datasets of that research would be open to be tested again.
Scientific research is the cutting/bleeding edge of human inquiry, and you
perfectly understand how it would be important to have results of that
inquiry to be available to anyone who wants to access it.
Also, how would you imagine such support? I could
imagine that with any
support by Wikimedia for a boycott, people would assume automatically that
we would start blocking citations of said journals. Or are you thinking
about that Wikimedia related scholars are asked to public Open Access? (I
could imagine this is already the case)
This is more difficult.
I don't have many concrete ideas, but if Wikimedia related scholars could
add their name to the boycott list, and WMF would say that clear and loud,
that would be a small but significant step. Many others could follow.
Boycott citations to important articles or journals is not really a good
move (it's complicated): better would be for any editor to check if there
is an open access article which provide similar results, but this would be
very time-consuming, I think, and not always effective.
In the past Wikimedia has always taken the stance that if people or
companies want to exercize their copyright within legal limits, we have no
objection to that (although we may challenge some of the legal limits).
Would you propose a standpoint that goes further than that? (because then,
it would imho certainly require much more community discussion before we
take such step)
I would like to point out that Open Access and in general Open Science are
movements wants "science" results open and available for all.
Traditional copyright is not the "main enemy": the enemy is a publishing
system that exploit the work of researchers (which write, review, and buy
articles) and public funds (through universities and libraries) with a very
too high profits. The system is wicked because there is a monopoly of few
huge publishers which decide prices of journals, which force you to buy
journals you don't want (the "bundle system").
Moreover, the are the Impact Factor issues, and the fact that these
publishers agree with SOPA, ACTA, etc.
I would like also to hear from Daniel, our beloved Wikimedian In Residence
for Open Access :-)
Aubrey
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 1 de Fevereiro de 2012 17:32, Andrea Zanni
<zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>escreveucreveu:
I don't know if it's the case,
but it would be very interesting to have the Foundation
support officialy the campaign (single scholars can do decide to boycott,
of course).
But "universal access to universal knowledge" is pretty Open Access to
me,
and this think is taking momentum,
hopefully will be effective.
Aubrey
2012/2/1 Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> Another article:
>
>
http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/
>
> > "Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works
Act
> > (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies
like the National Institutes
of
> > Health from making all articles written
by grant recipients freely
> > available."
> >
> >
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.03699:
> >
> > "Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting,
> > maintaining, continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy,
program,
or
> other activity that: (1) causes, permits, or
authorizes network
> dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior
> consent of the publisher; or (2) requires that any actual or
prospective
> > author, or the author's employer, assent to such network
dissemination.
> >
> > Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be
> > published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of
> > such an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government,
describing
or
> interpreting research funded in whole or in
part by a federal agency
and
> to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher
has made or has entered
into
> an arrangement to make a value-added
contribution, including peer
review
> or editing, but does not include progress
reports or raw data outputs
> routinely required to be created for and submitted directly to a
funding
> > agency in the course of research."
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l