Public meting: Workshop on
Denmark at an Open Access crossroads
– mandate or a peoples’ movement?
Time: September 3, 2010, at 13:15 to 15:15
Place: Niels Bohr Institute, Auditorium A, Blegdamsvej 17, Copenhagen (entrance to auditorium A via the reception in the basement of the villa at Blegdamsvej 17)
Meeting programme:
13:15
Claus Emmeche (CPNSS): Welcome note.
Key notes and repliques:
13:20
Juha Suoranta: Towards a global folkehøjskole? (abstract below)
13:45 - Juha Suoranta: replique
13:50 - questions and general discussion
13:55
Stevan Harnad: Mandating (Green) Open Access to Maximize the Usage and Impact of Danish Research Output (abstract below)
14:20 - Stevan Harnad: replique
14:25 - questions and general discussion
Actors, Brief statements, and Discussion
14:30
Kaspar Kirstein Nielsen (physicist, EliteForsk2009 price receiver; Danish Technical University): Ask a scientist what is do be done
14:35
Bo Öhrström (Danish Agency for Libraries and Media; Denmark's Electronic research Library (DEFF), chairman of the Danish Open Access Committee): The recent recommendations for implementation of Open Access in Denmark
14:40
Questions
14:45
Karen Skovgaard-Petersen and Lars Hem (The Danish Council for Independent Research | Humanities (FKK); Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab; Dept. of Psychology, Aarhus University): Humanities and Open Access.
14:50
Discussion
14:55
Jørgen Burchardt (researcher and chairman of The Society of Danish Science Editors): Can an Open Access mandate avoid destroying a well functioning publication system? (abstract below)
15:05: Discussion
15:15: End of meeting.
NB: The recent recommendations for implementation of Open Access in Denmark in a report from the Open Access Committee be downloaded in a Danish and an English version.
Present voices in the audience will also include Thorkil Damsgaard Olsen (OA deputy of the rector of University of Copenhagen), Marianne Gauffriau and Thomas Sinkjær (Danish National Research Foundation), science manager Ulla Jakobsen (the Lundbeck Foundation), senior advisor Leif Hansen (Copenhagen Business School; cf. the CBS OA policy), director Marianne Alenius (Museum Tusculanums Press, University of Copenhagen), professor Karen A. Krogfelt (The Danish Council for Independent Research | Technology and Production Sciences (FTP)) and principal Inger Schow (Centre for Independant Research and Research Training, The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation).
Abstracts:
Juha Suoranta (Professor in Adult Education at the University of Tampere, Adjunct Professor at the Sibelius Academy, Helsinki):
Towards global folkehøjskole?
What is the largest educational endeavor at the moment? It is not the world's higher education systems nor all adult education combined. It is Wikipedia, with its sister projects (Wikiversity etc.) and other platforms of sharing and interacting in the Internet. The age of Wikipedia, or Wikiword in general, is marked by a change, or perhaps even a revolution, in the we way we learn and educate each other: institutionalized learning is transforming into new forms of
collaborative learning projects and sharing our ideas and knowledge in the Internet via wikis. In these venues learning has little to do with individual rote learning (as many times in classrooms) and much to do with collective sharing and participating in learning. Learning is not so much reading and listening than evaluating and editing, which is a new, vital form of literacy. Thus Wikiworld is another step forward in the process of progressive, democracy enhancing educational thinking in the best liberal fashion of N. Grundtvig and the tradition of
Nordic folkehøjskole.
Nordic folkehøjskole.
Literature:
• See list of Juha's works at http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Juha_Suoranta and his blog
• Juha Suoranta: "Learners and Oppressed Peoples of the World, Wikify! Wikiversity as a Global Critical Pedagogy" (2010, preprint download)
• Juha Suoranta & Tere Vadén: "Wikilearning as Radical Equality" (2010, preprint download)
• Juha Suoranta: Wikilearning vs Formal Learning (Table 1)
• Leinonen, Teemu, Juha Suoranta & Tere Vadén: "Learning in and with an open wiki project: Wikiversity's potential in global capacity building" (link to the peer-reviewed paper)
Stevan Harnad (Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Science at Universite Quebec a Montreal and Professor in Electronics and Computer Science at University of Southampton, UK):
Mandating (Green) Open Access to Maximize the Usage and Impact of Danish Research Output
Open access (OA) means making peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly journal articles accessible for free online to all of their potential users rather than -- as now -- only to those users whose universities can afford subscription access to the journal in which
they are published. OA has been shown to increase research usage and impact metrics substantially, in every field. There are two ways to provide OA: The author self-archives a copy of the final draft in his institution's OA repository ("Green OA") or the author publishes the article in a journal that makes the article OA ("Gold OA"). Gold OA depends on publishers and costs extra money per article; Green OA depends only on researchers, their institutions and their funders, requires no extra payment, it can be mandated, and universities
and research funders the world over have already begun to mandate Green OA self-archiving, including among the early adopters Harvard, MIT and Stanford plus the National Institutes of Health in the US, Edinburgh, University College London and Southampton plus all
the RCUK councils in the UK, the EC and ERC councils in Europe, and, in Scandinavia: both the Swedish and Norwegian Research Councils, the universities of Bergen, Blekinge and Chalmers plus all the Finnish Universities -- but in Denmark so far only the Copenhagen Business
School! OA is optimal and inevitable, but there is a competitive advantage in being among the first to mandate OA, rather than the last. The Houghton Report has also shown that the benefit to cost ratio of mandating Green OA is 40/1. My talk will be about how universities and funders can mandate Green OA, why and how.
they are published. OA has been shown to increase research usage and impact metrics substantially, in every field. There are two ways to provide OA: The author self-archives a copy of the final draft in his institution's OA repository ("Green OA") or the author publishes the article in a journal that makes the article OA ("Gold OA"). Gold OA depends on publishers and costs extra money per article; Green OA depends only on researchers, their institutions and their funders, requires no extra payment, it can be mandated, and universities
and research funders the world over have already begun to mandate Green OA self-archiving, including among the early adopters Harvard, MIT and Stanford plus the National Institutes of Health in the US, Edinburgh, University College London and Southampton plus all
the RCUK councils in the UK, the EC and ERC councils in Europe, and, in Scandinavia: both the Swedish and Norwegian Research Councils, the universities of Bergen, Blekinge and Chalmers plus all the Finnish Universities -- but in Denmark so far only the Copenhagen Business
School! OA is optimal and inevitable, but there is a competitive advantage in being among the first to mandate OA, rather than the last. The Houghton Report has also shown that the benefit to cost ratio of mandating Green OA is 40/1. My talk will be about how universities and funders can mandate Green OA, why and how.
Addendum:
As the studies of Alma Swan and Bo-Christer Björk have shown, although researchers know and value the benefits of Open access (OA), just as with "publish or perish," they will not provide OA spontaneously; they will only do so only if OA is mandated by their institutions and funders. A decade of evidence has now shown that to keep waiting for OA to be provided by a spontaneous "people's" impetus is to keep waiting in vain.
The reason OA's primary target content is peer-reviewed journal articles rather than books is that, without exception, journal articles are written solely for research uptake, usage and impact, not for author royalty income. This is not true of books in general, hence book OA cannot be mandated -- but the increasingly palpable impact benefits of article OA will no doubt inspire more and more researchers to consider making their books OA too.
See:
• Swan, Alma (2006) Open Access Self-Archiving: An Introduction. JISC Technical Report.
• Harnad, Stevan (2008)Open Access Book-Impact and "Demotic" Metrics. Open Access Archivangelism.
• Harnad, Stevan (2008)
Literature:
Harnad, S. (2010) The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now. Prometheus, 28 (1). pp. 55-59. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18514/
Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. (in press) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18493/
Harnad, S. (2008) Waking OA’s “Slumbering Giant”: The University's Mandate To Mandate Open Access. New Review of Information Networking 14(1): 51 - 68 http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/17298/3/giantpaper1.pdf
The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model
Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?
How to Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates
Jørgen Burchardt (researcher and chairman of The Society of Danish Science Editors):
Can an Open Access mandate avoid destroying a well functioning publication system?
Burchardt is among the pioneers for Open Access, and he got the first Danish scholarly peer-reviewed journal on-line in 2001. Besides, he knows from his own research how the conditions are for publishing in countries with small culture groups and speech areas.
The most optimistic theories about OA are built on experiences from international STM (Science, Technology, Medicine) areas. Unfortunately those can not be transferred to small countries like Denmark. Mandating OA author self-archives would be pure poison for the existing publishing system and a catastrophe for researchers and society because qualified publishing would disappear. Self-archived manuscripts are of a considerably lower quality than articles from professional publishers.
Mandating OA paid by authors could be a solution. The model is, however, not useful in the humanities, social sciences, and other topics with poor single researchers. Some topics will lose twenty-five percent of their results (from researchers, who are unemployed, retired, or from non-research institutions). Simultaneously the researchers will lose their freedom to publish when non-researchers in reality decide about economic support or not.
A hybrid OA model with a protection period for sale, together with a compensation for lost income, could be a solution. It keeps economic resources for the editorial process and the editorial freedom will to some extent be kept.
In general, researchers and students will not have any advantage of OA at all! The research libraries give by and large all the necessary literature. However, OA will be an advantage for the economy and the population because of the understandable research from the humanities and social sciences, together with the Danish language popular science magazines within STM.
Literature:
”Videnskabelig redaktion og forskningspublicering – en glemt forudsætning for forskningsformidling”.
”Videnskabelig redaktion og forskningspublicering – en glemt forudsætning for forskningsformidling”.
http://www.videnssamfundet.dk/c.aspx?ItemId=103
”Da bibliotekarer kvalte dansk forskningsformidling”, Ingeniøren 7/6 2010 Hvad hvis forskerne bestemte?
”Da bibliotekarer kvalte dansk forskningsformidling”, Ingeniøren 7/6 2010 Hvad hvis forskerne bestemte?
http://ing.dk/artikel/109447-da-bibliotekarer-kvalte-dansk-forsknings-formidling
”Stop planen som nedlægger de danske videnskabelige tidsskrifter.” Høringssvar til DEFF’s Open Access udvalg
”Stop planen som nedlægger de danske videnskabelige tidsskrifter.” Høringssvar til DEFF’s Open Access udvalg
http://www.videnssamfundet.dk/a.aspx?ItemId=99
”Selvarkivering – en vej til fri og gratis forskning?”
”Selvarkivering – en vej til fri og gratis forskning?”
http://www.videnssamfundet.dk/a.aspx?ItemId=101
”Tvang, propaganda og uhyrlige påstande” Kommentarer til bibliotekernes OA forslag. http://www.videnssamfundet.dk/a.aspx?ItemId=98
”Hvidbog om dansk forskningsformidling” – med anbefalinger. http://www.videnssamfundet.dk/d.aspx
”Fra universitet til samfund. Forskningsformidlingens infrastruktur”. Bog 2007. http://www.videnssamfundet.dk/d2.aspx
”Tvang, propaganda og uhyrlige påstande” Kommentarer til bibliotekernes OA forslag. http://www.videnssamfundet.dk/a.aspx?ItemId=98
”Hvidbog om dansk forskningsformidling” – med anbefalinger. http://www.videnssamfundet.dk/d.aspx
”Fra universitet til samfund. Forskningsformidlingens infrastruktur”. Bog 2007. http://www.videnssamfundet.dk/d2.aspx
The meeting is organized by CPNSS, Center for the Philosophy of Nature and Science Studies at the University of Copenhagen.
Postscript:
slides and notes from the meeting:
Opslag
