Martin Fenner

That is quite a % step up from the last set of figures in Sept (09) which reported a 35% compliance rate http://www.scribd.com/doc... - Graham Steel

Do the eight UK PubMed Central funders fund 90% of life sciences research in the UK? In that case 90% is the potential, the 35% compliance mentioned by Graham (up from 15% in November 2006) is the current reality. - Martin Fenner

Hhmm. I'll seek clarification 'bout this. - Graham Steel

Bill, have you look at my other blog post on the topic from Monday? http://network.nature.com/people... There are many good arguments for Open Access (including better access to the literature), but there aren't that many direct incentives for authors. - Martin Fenner

Typo in first post Martin "Open Access can’t be looked at from many different angles" ;-) - AJCann

AJ, thanks for spotting that. I hope you don't interpret this as a Freudian slip. - Martin Fenner

It's fairly clear the the drive towards open access publication is currently coming from factors pushing researchers towards it, i.e. funder and institutional mandates. To be truly successful, we will also need factors which pull authors towards open access. What might they be? Well, instead of charging authors to publish, journals could, say, fund a PhD student for a year, but clearly... more... - AJCann

AJ - isn't that thinking a little bit too narrow and too short-term? Wouldn't it be better to promote a scholarly environment where what you publish is once again more important than where you publish? Indeed, wouldn't it be downright detrimental if the container were cemented as being worth more than its content? - Björn Brembs

Yes, that would be ideal, but the present climate, in the UK at least, is heading in the opposite direction - away from freedom of research. I guess it depends if you take a utopian view of the way the world should be, or a more short term view of what could be done to promote open access. As far as I'm concerned, creating market demand among authors is the only thing which seems likely to result in significant progress in the foreseeable future (say, over the next 5-10 years). - AJCann

Valid point. Nevertheless, Isn't access not only the lesser of two serious problems, but also one that solves itself if journals become irrelevant? The bigger problem for science is the pressure to publish: it promotes old boys clubs, elitism, hype and thereby fraud, undermining the scientific method itself. I personally know one individual and one organization who regularly invite... more... - Björn Brembs

BTW: http://www.daniel-lemire.com/blog... via http://friendfeed.com/shwu... - Björn Brembs

I would like to go back to the argument that started this discussion. Are there enough incentives for scientists to submit papers to Open Access journals? And if not, should authors be required to do so (and that could include submissions to a institutional repository) or should these incentives be created? I don't think it is realistic to ask a scientist, especially at the beginning or in the middle of his career to submit to an Open Access journal because it is "the right thing to do" in the long run. - Martin Fenner

Agreed, and a command economy would ultimately fail anyway. The only way to manage the publishing economy is by supply-side enhancement of demand - authors have to want it. - AJCann

@Martin, you are right -- my bad, I did not read your posts closely enough. There is a big difference between *immediate* incentives for authors and the sorts of longer-term reasons for supporting OA that I was talking about. - Bill Hooker

Which is not to say that I don't, as usual, agree with Bjoern about goals for the long term... I think it is realistic for funders to demand that scientists, regardless of career stage, make their work freely available. That doesn't have to mean an OA journal, it can be done as Martin points out using a Green repository -- this limits choice of journals to those which allow... more... - Bill Hooker

Bill, part of the reason I'm interested in immediate incentives for authors is that these two blog posts will be used for a talk I will give next month at a workshop organized by the Helmholtz Association (a large German research funder): http://oa.helmholtz.de/index.... - Martin Fenner

In Germany it is not realistic for funders to demand that scientists, regardless of career stage, make their work freely available. The German constitution protects the freedom of science, and that also includes the right to decide if and where to publish. This issue is currently hotly debated in Germany as a result of the Heidelberger Appell from March 2009: http://open-access.net/de_en... - Martin Fenner

My immediate reaction is that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. The vast majority of young scientists are "failing" now anyway, because of the intense competition for the few somewhat-secure positions. In the long run, OA could go a long way towards ameliorating that problem, by putting the competition at least on a rational footing (OA metrics are a lot better than "ooh look he's published in Nature"). - Bill Hooker

"OA metrics are a lot better than "ooh look he's published in Nature" Absolutely, Bill. I vividly recall one of my top neurologist contacts almost having an orgasm when she told me that she had had her first paper accepted for publication in Cell. This was about 4 years ago, and before I was aware of OA so I felt elated for her. Man how my views have changed since then ;-) - Graham Steel

@Martin: I know nothing of German law, but OA mandates need not restrict freedom of science. A law which prevents funders from attaching conditions (e.g. must self-archive) is more restrictive of funders' freedoms than any mandate I have seen is restrictive of authors' freedoms. But this is probably exactly the debate that is currently ongoing in Germany. - Bill Hooker

Another ingredient that I would like you folks to take into account is that people who publish in professional journals would like their work to be read. And, as Björn pointed out earlier, sometimes even the reviewers don't actually read the articles.......... I think there are many authors who would rather be read than receive a stipend for producing a publishable article, or they... more... - Lois Shawver, Ph.D.

I believe the main problem with the current system is that it is too expensive for many potential readers to access journals. Authors want to be read. If they do good work, being read can be lucrative even if they don't get paid for actually putting words out there describing their work. It will improve their status, which will help them get grants, speaking engagements, tenure, and other opportunities as others find them and want to work with them. - Lois Shawver - Lois Shawver, Ph.D.

I wonder whether we folks need to build something -- a wiki, a page listing FF conversations, something -- that could function as an Open Access/Open Science 101 course, to get people up to speed...? - Bill Hooker

How about a page on the OAD wiki, Bill ?? - Graham Steel