• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
12s
 

12s

on

  • 506 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
506
Views on SlideShare
506
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    12s 12s Document Transcript

    • Introduction: Quo vadis, Knowledge Society? / By Richard Sietmann, Science Journalist 绪论:现况,知识社会? / 理查德·希特曼(科学记者) Science and scholarship, in other words, the creators of knowledge, consist in large measure in the processing of information. New knowledge arises through the study of existing works, exchange of ideas, the linking of ideas and networking with other disciplines. Any restriction of access to academic information hinders the process of obtaining new insights and making new discoveries whose usefulness cannot be determined in advance. The publication of results and the accessibility of publications are therefore a precondition for the efficiency of the research process. 科学和学术,换言之,就是知识的创造者,主要是处理信息的。新知识崛起于研究既有作品、 交换思想、连结思想及构建与其它学科的网络。任何对获取学术信息的限制,都会阻碍取得新 见解,阻碍有用性无法预先确定的新发现。因此,借助出版研究成果并使之可获取,成为体现 研究过程效率的先决条件。 However, the following developments have created difficulties for traditional publishing: worldwide, more than one million peer-reviewed published articles appear in some 23 000 academic journals, about 90% of which are available online(1). The industrialised world is suffering an information overload. The number of published articles has truly exploded following a ‘publish or perish’ logic. In view of drastic increases in costs, libraries can no longer guarantee a comprehensive supply of literature, and researchers are finding it more and more difficult to get an overview of the relevant publications in their field. 然而,下述发展对传统的出版业造成困境:世界范围内,逾百万篇经同行评审的论文发表在约 23,000 种学术期刊中,其中约 90%可以在线读取(注 1)。工业化社会正承受信息超载。在“不 出版就出局”的逻辑下,论文出版量爆增;鉴于成本剧增,图书馆不再能保证文献供应无虞,研 究者综览其领域内相关出版物变得越来越困难。 注 1: Ware, Mark, 'Scientific Publishing in Transition: An Overview of Current Developments' = [转型 中的科学出版:当前发展综览], 2006. http://www.zen34802.zen.co.uk/Scientific_journal_publishing_- _STM_ALPSP_White_Paper_140906.pdf. Until now, the publication of research information on the Internet has largely followed the subscription model of printed journals. Academic institutes pay for online access so that faculties and students can consult the articles without financial constraints. For their research, however, the scientists, scholars and students must also turn to individual search engines of rival academic publishers such as Reed Elsevier, Thomson Scientific, Springer, or Wiley, in order to rustle up the relevant articles for their particular field of interest, a process that lags behind the potential of information technology. Though academic meta-search engines such as Google Scholar or Vascoda allow searches beyond the confines of individual publishers, the retrieval will only be successful if the links resulting from specific searches lead to the full text versions of articles, or access to them is covered by a subscription paid by the researcher’s library or institute. 直到现在,在因特网上出版研究信息仍在很大程度上追随印本期刊的订阅模式。学术机构付 费,取得在线访问权,师生才能无经济压力地查阅论文。然而,为了自身的研究,科学家、学 者和学生必须使用 Reed Elsevier、Thomson Scientific、Springer 或 Wiley 等学术出版商自己的搜 索引擎,才能收集齐全其感兴趣领域的相关论文,这种方式非常落伍。谷歌学术或 Vascoda 之 类的学术性元搜索引擎,尽管不受限于单个出版商,但只有在研究者的图书馆或机构已经付费 订阅,才能访问检索结果中链接的文章全文。
    • As no research institution or library can afford to purchase all electronic journals, faculties and students often find themselves in the same situation as ordinary citizens. Browsing in the research landscape ends at a publisher’s portal where it may cost 25 or 30 euros to download a complete article. For this pay-per-view procedure, payment is as a rule by credit card, and the reader will not know until after paying whether the article was worth the price charged. 由于没有任何研究机构或图书馆具有购买所有电子期刊的能力,师生常和普通市民一样,浏览 研究概况后,停在出版社门户网站前,可能需要支付 25 至 30 欧元后才能下载一篇全文。这种 按浏览付费的方式,只有在以信用卡付费后,读者才知道那篇文章是否值如许花费。 Researchers, interested lay people, inventors, patients, teachers and journalists are all confronted with a tollbooth at the entrance to the gardens of knowledge when seeking the latest state of knowledge for private or professional reasons. For many users, this is a paradoxical situation: never before has scholarship had at its disposal such a platform for knowledge-networking as is offered by the Internet, but at the same time the transfer of the traditional publication system to cyberspace goes hand-in-hand with exclusive rights of access. Reputable scholars and scientists see these barriers to access as ultimately endangering precisely what constitutes the generation of new knowledge in that they hinder the free exchange of thoughts and ideas which is a sine qua non condition of research(2). By contrast, a declaration submitted by publishers of scientific, technical and medical journals states that ‘copyright protects the investment of both authors and publishers’, and that ‘respect for copyright encourages the flow of information and rewards creators and entrepreneurs’(3). 研究者、普通人、研发者、病患、教师及记者,在寻找新知供私人或专业使用时,都须面对知 识花园入口的收费站。对很多用户而言,这是一种奇特的现象:学术从未象现在这样有了一个 知识网络平台,这是由因特网所提供的;而与此同时,传统的出版系统转换至网络空间时,却 要求排他的获取权。知名学者及科学家将这种获取障碍视为产生新知的威胁,因为它们阻碍了 自由交换思想及见解,而这正是研究的先决条件(注 2)。相反地,科技医学期刊出版社则发 表宣言,主张“版权保护作者及出版社的投资”,而“尊重版权才能鼓励信息流动、回报创作者及 企业家”(注 3)。 注 2: Open letter by 25 Nobel prize-winners to the US Congress = [25 位诺贝尔奖得主给美国国会的 公开信]: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2004/08/nobel082604.pdf. 注 3: Brussels Declarations on STM Publishing = [布鲁塞尔科技医学出版宣言]. http://www.stm- assoc.org/brussels-declaration/. E-Science••••••••••••••• E 科学 In the light of this situation, some progress has been made. Since it is relatively easy to operate a website as an electronic journal, many scholars and scientists have become active in this field. With the help of software tools and editorial systems that organise the processing of manuscripts from submission to the review process and all the way to final approval, they have established independent communication platforms for their communities. The Directory of Open Access Journals now lists more than 2 500 freely accessible journals, amounting to about 10% of all scientific journals(4). Responding to this development, a number of publishers are now also offering authors the option of making their articles freely accessible electronically on payment of a fee through an ‘author pays’
    • rather than a ‘user pays’ model. 这种情况已有若干改变。由于以网站作为电子期刊的平台已经是相对简单的事,许多学者和科 学家已活跃于此领域,借助软件工具和编辑系统,建立从稿件提交、审查至批准的流程,已为 自己的社区建起独立的交流平台。开放获取期刊目录(DOAJ)已收录 2,500 多种可自由获取的 期刊,相当于所有科学期刊的约 10%(注 4)。针对此发展态势,若干出版社现在也提供作者 选择,在“作者付费”之后,其论文可以自由地以电子方式获取,不再受限于“读者付费”模式。 注 4: Directory of Open Access Journals, http://www.doaj.org (as of March 2007, 2597) [2009 年 2 月, 已成长至 3888 种] While many Open Access journals are using the ‘author pays’ model to transfer traditional journals to the Internet, totally different forms of publication are beginning to appear. In many cases, electronically written dissertations are already accessible online, for example, via Dissertation Online(5) at the German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) in the case of Germany. Increasingly, scholars and scientists are uploading presentations, survey articles, position papers or lecture scripts onto their own homepages, institute server or onto external electronic archives as so-called ‘grey literature’. On a broad variety of conditions, some publishers already allow authors to publish their manuscripts in so- called repositories before peer review (preprints) or after publication in a journal (postprints). This procedure is not uncontroversial. In the above mentioned declaration, publishers complain that ‘self- archiving’ of manuscripts accepted for publication in freely accessible repositories risks destabilising subscription income and undermines peer review. 很多开放获取期刊采取“作者付费”模式,将传统的期刊转移到因特网,也有其它完全不同形式 的出版物问世。以电子形式撰写的学位论文已经可在线获取,如通过德国国家图书馆的“在线论 文”(注 5)。越来越多的学者和科学家将他们的报告、调查文章、立场声明、讲稿等所谓 的“灰色文献”,上传至自己的主页、机构服务器或外部的电子存档处。在某些前提下,有些出 版社已经允许作者将待审稿件(预印本)或期刊上出版的论文(后印本) 放在典藏库。这两个 程序彼此之间没有冲突。在前述的宣言里,出版社抱怨已经准备出版的稿件“自存档”之后,可 以经由典藏库自由获取,造成其订阅收入不稳定,并破坏同行评审制度。 注 5: DissOnline, http://www.dissonline.de The Directory of Open Access Repositories already lists 852 repositories, about half of which are operated by research institutes and libraries in Europe, and one-third in North America(6). Such repositories additionally open up the possibility of making original research data accessible, and of preserving them in the long term. For it is precisely with the masses of data obtained at great expense from satellite missions, global sensor networks or large-scale basic-research experiments, as well as clinical studies and statistical surveys, that traceability, plausibility and re-use by colleagues in the field is increasingly important. As actors such as advocates of Science Commons emphasise(7), repositories that are ‘open archives’ transcend the role of publication servers for journal articles by far; indeed, they can become the nodes of a novel kind of network, a kind of Web 2.0 for research, which is often known as ‘E-Science’ (Enhanced Science). This notion refers to a service infrastructure for access to primary scientific data and for net-based forms of collaboration. According to this vision, scientists and scholars will be able to form project-related virtual organisations based on tools and services for cooperative work, media-integrating procedures of ‘information mining’, and access to widely-distributed heterogeneous collections of data, as is already practised by high-energy physicists for their
    • experiments. 开放获取库目录(OpenDOAR)已列出 852 个典藏库,由机构或图书馆运作,其中半数在欧 洲,三分之一在北美洲(注 6)。这些典藏库不但使原始研究数据可获取,而且长期保存它 们。那些耗费极大得到的大规模数据,来自卫星任务、全球探测网络、大型基础研究实验以及 临床研究和调查统计,其重要性在于可供同行追溯、辨伪及再利用。作为“科学共享”的倡导者 (注 7),典藏库将期刊论文的出版服务器转换为“开放存档处”,它们将成为新型态的网络节 点,一种供研究使用的 Web 2.0,常被称为“E 科学”(强化科学)。此概念泛指服务的基础设 施,用以获取第一手科学数据,并建立网络为基础的合作模式。根据此愿景,科学家和学者将 能在相关工具及服务的基础上,形成项目相关的虚拟组织,合作工作,从事媒体整合型的“信息 挖掘”,获取分布广泛的异质数据集合。高能物理学者在他们的实验上,已经将此概念付诸实 施。 注 6: The Directory of Open Access Repositories - (OpenDOAR) = [开放获取典藏库目录], http://www.opendoar.org (as of March 2007: Europe 419, North America 279) [2008 年 10 月, 总计 1366, 非洲 19、亚洲 140、澳洲及大洋洲 73、加勒比海 1、中美洲 1、欧洲 605、北美洲 371、南 美洲 56] 注 7: Science Commons: The Neurocommons = [科学共享:神经科学], http://sciencecommons.org/projects/data. The migration of academic publishing to the Internet is thus more than just a change of medium for specialist communication in which e-mails replace postal services, publishers’ portals assume the function of libraries, and PDF downloads replace the photocopying of articles from journals. It exposes hitherto concealed structural conflicts, primarily in regard to the question of who in the system pays precisely how much for what. Should scientific and technical information obtained with taxpayers’ money in public institutions or on the basis of publicly funded projects be a free commodity? Or is it ‘a commodity, which, as an information product or service, is traded and sold, and in other words has a market’(8)? Toll Access or Open Access — the two concepts seem to be irreconcilably opposed. In addition, electronic publishing poses a severe test for the actors’ traditional understanding of their roles. If access is to be free of charge for the enduser, who will ensure the adequate quality of the product? Who will provide and pay for the infrastructure necessary for its presentation, access and storage? 把学术出版转移到因特网,不只是改变专家交流的媒介,由电子邮件替代邮政服务,也不是用 出版社的门户网站取代图书馆的功能,或下载 PDF 取代影印期刊论文。它暴露出隐藏的结构性 矛盾,主要的问题在于系统内是谁、为了什么、付多少钱。用公立机构或公共资助项目纳用税 人的钱取得的科技信息,是否应该视为免费商品?或者把它视为“商品,作为信息产品或服务, 可以交易及销售,换言之它有市场”(注 8)?付费获取或开放获取似乎是水火不容的两个概 念。此外,电子出版对传统的业者带来严峻的考验,如果最终用户可以免费获取,谁能确保产 品质量?谁会提供必要的基础设施并为之买单,才能让这些信息展示、获取及存储? 注 8: Programme of the German Federal Government, '1996–2000 Information als Rohstoff für Innovation' = [德国联邦政府项目,“1996-2000 信息为创新的原材料”], BMBF, 1996, p. 19. Role distribution•••••••••• 传播的角色
    • Traditionally, publishers perform these services. They organise the peer-review process and develop new journals as a communication platform for the specialist community, in view of the increasing fragmentation of academic disciplines. In these activities, major publishing companies whose prime obligation is to maximise the shareholder value compete with small publishers and ‘non-profit’ publishers set up by learned societies that plough their profits straight back into the academic activities of the societies. In the opinion of STM (science, technology, and medicine) publishers, the market for scientific publications needs no state intervention. ‘Authors should be free to choose where they publish in a healthy, undistorted free market’(9). 传统上,由出版社提供传播服务,不但组织同行评审,面对越来越破碎的学科,还需出版新的 期刊做为该专家社区的交流平台。在这些活动中,大型出版公司的主要义务是最大化股东的利 益,与小出版社和由学会成立的“非营利”出版社竞争,这些“非营利”出版社把利润直接回馈给 学会的学术活动。根据科技医学出版社的观点,科学出版物市场不需要国家干预,“作者应当在 健康未扭曲的自由市场中,自由选择在何处出版他们的作品”(注 9)。 注 9: 参见注 3 In contrast, advocates of Open Access argue that academic publishing is very different from the rest of the media sector. They point out that in this sub-market, the public sector is present both as a supplier and a customer. It pays for the research and the documentation of the results, finances peer review by paying the salaries of the referees, and enables libraries to purchase journal subscriptions. Moreover, unlike copyright-holders in the media sector, scholars and scientists are usually not paid for the articles in which they document the results of their research, but make their work freely available. Their remuneration comes in the form of their reputation and their recognition by the academic community, which cannot be directly measured in financial terms. They are at the same time ‘content providers’ and researching readers, and in this double role it is in their natural interest that both their own results, as well as those of their fellow researchers, be disseminated as widely as possible. 相反地,开放获取的推动者认为,学术出版不同于其它媒体部门。他们指出,在这个次级市场 里,公共部门既是供应者也是顾客,它支付成果的研究与出版费用,支付评审人的工资以资助 同行评审,使图书馆得以订购期刊。此外,不同于媒体部门的版权所有人,学者和科学家通常 没有被支付研究成果的论文费,反而期望其作品能够被自由取用。他们的报酬来自声誉和被学 界认同,不能直接用金钱来衡量。他们兼具“内容提供者”和研究型读者的双重身份,自然期望 他们自身及其它同行研究者的成果,可以被尽量广泛地传播。 The crisis and financial pressure in the information-provision sector are, however, not a direct incentive for most scientists and scholars to exert any active influence on developments, because they do not have to bear the cost of the publication system themselves. Researchers need publications for their career advancement, but they do not pay for subscriptions themselves. Their interest is confined to being published in reputable journals. As readers, in turn, they are mainly interested not in the journal, but in the contributions of their fellow researchers, regardless of where these are published. (In this context a small number of journals, for example Science or Nature for the STM field, constitute an exception in that they link refereed articles with editorial content and provide their readers with additional information on research policy and academic controversies.) 然而,信息提供部门的危机和财务压力,并不是让大多数科学家和学者积极影响此种发展的直 接诱因,因为他们不需承受出版系统的成本。研究人员的前程需要出版,但他们不必为他们的 订阅付费,他们的兴趣仅止于发表在知名刊物上。而身为读者,他们的主要兴趣不在期刊,而 是得知同行的研究成果,出版与否都没有关系。(在这种情况下,少数像《科学》或《自然》 这样的科技医学期刊,将被评审的论文链结至编辑内容,让读者得知研究政策及学术争议方面
    • 的附加信息。) Libraries are the most affected by the changes described. Their classic mediating function becomes a dilemma in the context of the virtualisation of information supply, which now takes place in a paperless form via the web and is no longer tied to buildings and opening-times. In the Toll Access scenario, in which access is possible exclusively via the web portals of commercial publishers, as far as journals are concerned, libraries would have no more than the role of museums of the Gutenberg cultural legacy. They would administer the material from pre-Internet days, or maybe act as brokers negotiating digital- rights management conditions with publishers on behalf of affiliated institutions. In the other scenario, they would be the actor which, as operators of institutional repositories, would be responsible for the administration, conservation and long-term storage of research results in digital archives, thus ensuring the preservation of this cultural asset for future generations. 图书馆最受上述变化影响。传统的中介功能变成进退两难的困境,信息提供已经虚拟化,通过 网页以无纸形式出现,不再受建筑物及开放时间限制。在收费获取的环境下,期刊只能经由商 业出版社的门户网站访问,图书馆只能扮演古腾堡文化遗址式的博物馆角色。图书馆会管理因 特网之前的资料,或者成为数字权利管理的代理商,代表所属机构向出版社磋商获取条件。在 另一种情形下,图书馆会成为机构库的操作者,负责管理、保存及长期存储研究成果的数字档 案,确保文化遗产为后代子孙使用。 In both cases, it is the taxpayer who bears the costs. For example, in the context of an ‘author pays’ model, the author or his or her institution pays the publisher for services rendered in the form of publishing the article and disseminating the results. Therefore, the costs would simply be shifted from one branch of the public sector to another, namely from the library budget to the research budget. In the transitional period, in which the two systems co-exist side-by-side, this would require extra funds, or, if subscriptions to electronic journals were cancelled, it would lead to gaps in the availability of scientific and scholarly information. 这两种情形,都是纳税人买单。例如,在“作者付费”模式下,作者或其机构付费给出版社,换 取出版及传播成果的服务。因此,仅是把费用从一个公共部门转换到另一个,即从图书馆预算 转为研究预算。在过渡时期,此二系统并存,反而需要更多的经费,而如果停订电子期刊,将 导致科学和学术信息的获取落差。 In the present phase of upheaval, therefore, we clearly need to ask not only about return on investment, but also about the optimum structures for the supplying of information in the knowledge society. The transformation of academic publishing from the Gutenberg Galaxy to cyberspace demands of all those involved that they redefine their role within the system. The forthcoming changes will make it necessary to take into account a large number of technical, legal and economic factors. In the definition of their new role, all actors depend upon each other. In the following chapters, light will be cast on the opportunities and risks of the possible paths of development from the differing points of view of these concerned actors. This handbook thus seeks to make a contribution to meeting this challenge. 因此,在当前的动荡阶段,不仅需要了解投资回报,而且还要优化知识社会的信息供给结构。 将学术出版从古腾堡世界转换到网络空间,需要所有参与者重新定义他们在体制中的作用。即 将到来的变化,必须考虑大量的技术、法律和经济因素,在定义其新作用时,所以参与者互相 依赖。在接下来的几章中,将从参与者的各个角度,探讨各种可能发展路线的机会及风险。本 手册试图对迎接此挑战有所贡献。 It is subdivided into five chapters: following an explanation of the terms and the origin of Open Access in Chapter 1, three innovative publication models are introduced in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 deals with the questions raised by the implementation of Open Access: what are the challenges of archiving on the Internet? How will quality be assured if the traditional peer review process becomes less important?
    • Who will pay for the publication process if access to information is free of charge to the user? How is copyright affected by Open Access? How will Open Access change the structure of academic communication? Chapter 4 presents position statements by institutions judging Open Access from their own perspective, while Chapter 5 presents an overview of the international scene. 本书分为五章:解说开放获取名词的内涵及其起源,放在第一章;三个创新的出版模式,于第 二章介绍;第三章探讨实施开放获取所引致的疑问:因特网存档面对什么挑战?如果传统的同 行评审程序变得不那么重要,如何确保质量?如果获取信息免费,谁会支付出版过程的费用? 开放获取如何影响版权?开放获取将如何改变学术交流的结构?第四章由相关机构以自己的立 场评判开放获取;第五章提供开放获取的国际发展。 p. 12-17 Open Access: Opportunities and challenges. A handbook [开放获取 : 机会及挑战] / European Commission/German Commission for UNESCO). -- Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008. -- 144 pp., 14.8 x 21.0 cm. -- ISBN 978-92-79-06665-8. -- EUR 23459, http://tinyurl.com/3q8wo5