Plinius

mandag, september 5, 2011

P 134/11: Dype reformer kreves

Filed under: bibliotek 2.0, debatt, framtid, publisering — plinius @ 11:14 am

Kunnskapsproduksjonen i det 21. århundre skjer under andre forhold enn midt på 1900-tallet.

Det vitenskapelige publiseringssystemet som vokste fram på 18- og 1900-tallet kan ikke videreføres i sin gamle form. De grunnleggende rammebetingelsene for forskning, utvikling og innovasjon er i ferd med å forandre seg. En IKT-drevet global kunnskapsøkonomi krever andre strukturer og strategier enn den sen-industrielle velferdsstat.

Hvordan det nye systemet skal se ut er det stor uenighet om. I USA og Storbritannia er debatten i full gang.  Interessekampen mellom radikale og konservative krefter er velkjent fra musikk-, avis- og bokbransjen.  Mange aktører foretrekker de gamle ordningene – dels av økonomiske og dels av praktiske grunner. Det å forandre vaner er slitsomt. Aller Anfang ist schwer.

Kommersielle forlag frykter for sine fete inntekter og stritter i mot så godt de kan. Dersom helhetsperspektivet truer deres pengestrømmer, vil de ikke føre saklige diskusjoner på systemnivå. De miljøene som klarest ser behovet for radikal omstrukturering, er institusjoner som (a la JISC) har som mandat å ivareta forskningssamfunnets felles interesser.

Slik har det vært siden 1990-åra, da de store forlagene førte en innbitt kamp mot SPARC-alliansen og mot engasjerte forskere (Odlyzko, Harnad) som prøvde å ivareta samfunnsinteressene. Situasjonen var den samme for legene som la seg ut med tobakksindustrien og kritikerne som pirket ved bilindustrien (Nader: Unsafe at any speed): økonomisk makt og tåkelegging mot offentlighet og kritisk fornuft.

Debattens kjerne (slik Plinius ser det) er ikke om person X skal ha full frihet til å velge tidsskrift Y i stedet for tidsskrift Z, men om hvordan vi kan reformere de faglige kommunikasjonssystemene slik at de ivaretar sine sentrale oppgaver i det 21. århundret. Da må vi også se på hvordan oppgavene forandrer. Forholdet mellom forskning, utvikling, formidling, læring, innovasjon og produksjon er også i bevegelse.

Bibliotekene hadde sentrale (men nokså passive) funksjoner i det gamle systemet. Jeg mener vi bør satse på sentrale (og langt mer aktive) roller i det nye.  Første skritt i retning av å handle er ikke å velge struktur A framfor struktur B, men å gå inn i en bred debatt med internasjonalt perspektiv om mulige strukturer.

Personlige debatter om meg og mitt i Norge akkurat nå er mindre interessante.  JISC og Poynder viser vei.

Takk til Lisbeth Eriksen for lenke til bloggpost hos JISC. Jeg har laget en kortversjon av posten (se Vedlegg).

Ressurser

Plinius

VEDLEGG A

[There is]  overwhelming evidence that open access is a desirable destination for all kinds of reasons.

A joint report was released last month from JISC, RIN, Publishing Research Consortium, RLUK and the Wellcome Trust, which showed clearly that moves toward open access were supported by an analysis of the costs, benefits and risks in scholarly communication.

A recent Danish study of SMEs showed that most of them struggle to access findings from publicly funded research, which surely inhibits innovation.  JISC, on behalf of the UK Open Access Implementation Group, is commissioning three further studies to discover how open access can support the work of the private, public and third sectors, and these studies will report over the next six months or so.

But there are other reasons why open access is gaining a lot of attention from governments.  We have known for some time that the knowledge economy depends on the application of codified, technical knowledge.  As David Cameron and Barack Obama pointed out this week  “science and higher education are the foundation stones of their two nations’ 21st century economies”. …

  • Open access is likely to look different, and emerge at different speeds in different disciplines.  In some disciplines such as the life sciences, there are major, innovative publishers such as the Public Library of Science, and repositories such as UK PubMedCentral supported by research funders.  …
  • The transition to open access will need to be co-ordinated to ensure the continuity and rigour of the peer review system.  … JIC’s new programme in campus-based publishing is exploring an alternative approach that has had success in other countries already.
  • The institutional repository infrastructure, while mature and reasonably comprehensive, is not yet as joined-up as it needs to be.

Open access publishing faces a number of specific challenges, which could be summarised under the following six headings:

  1. Funding outputs from research that is not grant-supported.
  2. Funding outputs produced after the end of the grant.
  3. Complexity of funding arrangements from an author’s perspective.
  4. Need for transparency in costing, especially for hybrid journals.
  5. Absolute cost.
  6. Distribution of costs / benefits among the sector.

Recent research shows that the average article processing charge needs to be under £2000 for the cost-benefits to work for the UK.  It seems likely that the PLoS-One publishing model, now widely emulated, must be a large part of the answer.  In the medium term, this needs to be combined with agreements on the wider sharing of usage statistics and citation data, and review services such as the Faculty of 1000, to open up a market in services to help readers navigate the literature.

VEDLEGG B

PLoS ONE is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science since 2006. It covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. All submissions go through an internal and external pre-publication peer review but are not excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. The PLoS ONE online platform has post-publication user discussion and rating features. …

The journal uses an editorial board of almost 1,400 academics and in the first four years following launch it made use of over 35,000 external peer reviewers. PLoS ONE publishes approximately 70 % of all submissions, after review by, on average, 2.8 experts.

As with all journals of the Public Library of Science, PLoS ONE is financed by charging authors a publication fee. The «author-pays» model allows PLoS journals to provide all articles to everybody for free (open access) immediately after publication. As of July 2010, PLoS ONE charges authors $1,350 to publish an article. It will waive the fee for authors who do not have sufficient funds.

This model has drawn criticism, however. Richard Poynder argues that journals such as PLoS ONE that charge authors for publication rather than charging users for access may produce a conflict of interest that reduces peer review standards (accept more articles, earn more revenue). Stevan Harnad instead argues for a «no fault» peer review model, in which authors are charged for each round of peer review, regardless of the outcome, rather than for publication.

PLoS ONE (Wp)

2 kommentarer »

  1. Hei Tord,

    Her er ei samanlikning av open access bøker med tradisjonelle universitetsforlag.

    Konklusjonen er ikkje overraskande, men bør vere eit varsko for vitskapsfolk som publiserar i forlag som ikkje tillet fri publisering. Det har no vore open access såpass lenge, og studier etter studier visar at open access når eit langt større publikum og får fleire siteringar (sjølv om statistikken vert forsøkt radbrekt av dyktige lobbyistar med jamne mellomrom). Det er truleg at desse tendensane vil auke sterkt når leseplater og tablets vert allemannseige og internett forgreinar seg tettare og tettare rundt jordkloten.

    «Results suggest that there is no significant difference in the Amazon rankings. This suggests that releasing academic books on open access does not lessen printed book sales online in comparison with traditional university presses using Amazon.com and Amazon.ca rankings. On the other hand, AUPress, because it is open access and publicly available at no cost, can boast of having a significantly larger readership for its books. The traditional university presses, because of their cost, print-only format, and other proprietary limitations are not readily available and therefore not accessible to many potential readers.»

    McGreal, R., & Chen, N.-S. (2011). AUPress: A Comparison of an Open Access University Press with Traditional Presses. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (3), 231–239.

    Kommentar av Pål M. Lykkja — mandag, september 5, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

  2. There has been a sharp fall over the past five years in the number of researchers who visit their institution’s library regularly. This is most pronounced in the sciences, but in all disciplines there is clear evidence of declining attendance. Researchers are choosing to access digital information from their desktops, primarily from their office but also from their homes.

    Only in the arts and humanities do a significant majority of researchers put a high value on the services provided in library buildings. And while just over a third of arts and humanities researchers visit libraries other than their own on a regular basis, a much smaller number of social science and science researchers do so.

    Researchers’ Use of Academic Libraries and their Services A report commissioned by the Research Information Network and the Consortium of Research Libraries (April 2007)

    Kommentar av plinius — mandag, september 5, 2011 @ 6:58 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Legg igjen en kommentar

Fyll inn i feltene under, eller klikk på et ikon for å logge inn:

WordPress.com-logo

Du kommenterer med bruk av din WordPress.com konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Twitter picture

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Twitter konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Facebookbilde

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Facebook konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterer med bruk av din Google+ konto. Logg ut / Endre )

Kobler til %s

Opprett en gratis blogg eller et nettsted på WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: