Recently, I came across this quote from Rep. Mike Honda:
Instead of databases becoming available as a result of Freedom Of Information Act requests, government officials should be required to justify why any public data should not be freely available to the taxpayers who paid for its creation.
It struck me that there’s very different politics in these two different scenarios:
“We need information about topic X. We should build a database of data/documents about topic X.” Later: “Hey, now that we have this useful database, maybe we should share it with the public.”
“Let’s build a database about topic X for the public.”
In the former case, you’re making an argument about value to the institution. Once the information trove has been established for a limited audience, there’s then (especially where public money is involved) an equity concern about other audiences who might benefit from the information but don’t have access.
In the latter case, it’s an argument about the nebulous value to the “public”. Sometimes, a do-gooder idea just doesn’t get the traction as an idea framed as necessary to achieve a self-interested goal.
So that brings us to scientific publications. The most effective route to open access is requirements by research funders and institutions that their authors provide OA to their manuscripts accepted for publication. Growing handfuls of funders and institutions have adopted these policies, but they’re still only handfuls. ...
What if the argument was about creating internal repositories? We take concerns about open access off the table ... What’s left are entirely questions of bureaucracy, technology, and a little money. ...
If my idea works (and I think it will), you’ll develop a low-cost, high-value repository. Then (more) people will start to ask, hey, why are keeping this locked down; why don’t we open it all up? Cue Rep. Honda ...
I think of this as a twist on the immediate deposit/optional access strategy (or the dual deposit/release strategy). In those models, it’s framed as an open access strategy. Moreover, open access is the default, with an optional embargo. ...
For funders and institutions without the wherewithal to adopt an OA mandate yet, it’s probably the best compromise step. ...
Posted by
Gavin Baker at 3/30/2009 12:30:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
