Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Chapter 4: Political Perspectives 75 第四章 政治考量 Controversial Issues in the Context of Open Access / By Ralf Schimmer, Max Planck Digital Library 開放近用全文的爭議 / 羅夫‧斯梅爾, 普馬基金會數位圖書館 Where there is smoke, there is fire. If this cliché contains some truth, the dense smoke (the frequency and tone of the current debate on Open Access) must conceal a fire that is burning quite fiercely. The discussions and arguments on this topic are intense and bitter, not only in Germany. The typical munitions from the arsenal of political lobbying are deployed more and more openly: one expert opinion on the tail of another, one position statement quickly followed by the next. A competition of appeals, resolutions, declarations and petitions can be observed. 無風不起浪, 如果這種陳詞濫調還有一些真理,巨浪(當前討論開放近用的頻頻率和語氣)必定因 強風而起。這些相當激烈與痛苦的討論和爭議,不以德國為限。政治遊說的聲浪, 越來越公開: 專家的意見首尾相連,立場聲明一個緊接著一個。不同的呼籲、決議、宣言和請願書隨處可 見。 In the Open Access debate, there is a collision between the interests of large and powerful collective actors: the academic world, the publishing industry, the public, and the community. An institutional structure that for a long time had seemed to have found a stable balance that satisfied everyone has been put out of kilter for good through the breathtaking speed at which the Internet has developed, progressive digitalisation, and the huge changes in academic communication. As a result, issues which in the past were rarely of public concern and which were usually negotiated only in specialist circles have become the topic of wide-ranging public debate. 在開放近用的辯論裡,各方的利益彼此衝撞:學術圈、出版界、社會大眾以及社群。長期以來, 體制內的結構似乎已經達到穩定平衡的階段,讓每個人都滿意; 然而, 網際網路的發展、數位化 的進展以及學術傳播的巨大變化, 讓此情況失調。因此,過去很少被公眾關注,通常只在專家圈 裡磋商的議題, 已經成為各界廣泛辯論的焦點。 When it comes to access to knowledge, scientists and scholars aim at maximum dissemination, and emphasise the new possibilities offered by the Internet with regard to immediacy, affordability and superiority. Nowadays, from the academic point of view, the dissemination of research results looks something like this: most research worldwide is carried out at publicly funded institutions, primarily universities. The results of publicly funded research are mostly passed on free of charge to publishers, where they are prepared for publication. The publishers organise and finance what is known as the peer
  2. 2. review process as the central quality-assurance instrument. This depends on the collaboration (which is as a rule unpaid) of publicly funded scientists and scholars. At the end of the publication process, publicly funded libraries have to buy back publicly funded research results, which have been quality assured by publicly funded scientists and scholars acting as reviewers, in the form of constantly increasing rates of subscription to journals. Looking at the process like this, it would appear that the taxpayer is shelling out at a number of stages along the way. This in turn leads to talk about the privatisation of public funds. The cost argument, however, is by no means the only one adduced by academics. According to them, there are not just financial, but also legal and technical barriers that make the publication of academic research results in the Internet age far from being as efficient and sustainable as they would wish or think possible. 涉及近用知識時,科學家和學者的目標是儘量傳播出去,並強調網際網路可提供立即、可負擔 和優越的可能性。如今,從學術的角度來看,傳播研究成果看起來像這樣:全世界大多數的研 究多半由大學等公家機構資助。公帑資助的研究成果, 免費交給出版社,由他們出版。出版社進 行與資助所謂的同儕評閱, 把它當成品質保證的工具, 這個程序取決於公帑付薪的科學家和學者 的合作(評閱本身不付費是慣例)。到了出版過程的最後,公帑資助的圖書館付出不斷調漲的訂 閱費, 向出版社購買經由公帑付薪的科學家和學者評閱後的公帑資助研究成果。看著這個過程, 似乎納稅人在若干階段被多次剝削; 再引發另一個私有化公帑的討論。成本不是學者唯一關心的 事, 據他們說,不祗是錢的問題,而且法律和技術障礙,使網際網路時代的學術研究出版成果, 未得到他們期望的效率和持續性。 If one considers the various academic disciplines, one will see that there is no uniform attitude, indeed not even an unambiguous attitude, towards Open Access. The preconditions and cultures, as well as the possibilities and requirements in different academic fields are too distinct from one another to allow us to speak of a coherent academic standpoint. There are substantial differences between the natural sciences and the humanities, but also between the individual natural sciences or even sub-divisions thereof. Even so, there is generally a growing interest in the theme of Open Access. What unites academia in all this is the feeling of living in what may be a revolutionary period in which more and more paths for further improvement of the effectiveness of research are opening up. This suggests that academics’ discomfort with the traditional publishing system and its current allocation of resources will increase. 各學科對開放近用的態度並不一致,也不明確。各學科的先決條件和文化,以及各領域不同的 可能與需求,很難產生一致的學術觀點。自然科學和人文科學之間,有重大的差異, 各自然學科 之間,甚至次學科之間, 也有明顯的不同。儘管如此,對開放近用的興趣日增, 則是一致的。把 學術界團結在一起的是, 大家都處在革命性的時代,進一步改善研究效果的途徑, 愈來愈多。對 於傳統的出版系統及分配資源的現況, 學者對此感到不滿。 This situation seems quite different from the point of view of commercial information providers. Publishers argue that it is part of their remit and their culture-historical achievement to contribute to the dissemination of knowledge. Many publishers see themselves explicitly as partners of academia, highlighting their massive investment in academic quality assurance and in electronic distribution platforms, and stressing the fact that never before has so much content been available to scientists and scholars as today. Publishers counter the complaints of academics about qualitative restriction by pointing to vast quantitative growth in the form of constantly increasing contents and user numbers. They underscore their competence and experience in ensuring the quality and integrity of the content of articles, warning against underestimating the costs and organisational demands of electronic
  3. 3. publication and distribution processes, and insisting that there is no alternative to the current subscription model. They counter the brave new world promised by the Internet with warnings about the danger of loss of quality in academic communication. In the eyes of publishers, Open Access threatens not just the academic journal as a cultural good, but also substantial investments in information infrastructures, jobs, and ultimately a whole industry. Optimum access to knowledge, according to the publishers, will continue to lie in the goods and services offered by commercial information providers. 從商業資訊供應商的角度來看, 卻是另一番景況。出版社自稱,散播知識是他們的職權, 以及文 化歷史的成就。許多出版社自許為學術界的夥伴,突顯他們在保證學術品質、電子散佈平台, 並強調今天為科學家和學者提供的豐富內容, 達到前所未有的階段。出版社反駁學者的指控, 認 為品質的限制, 肇因為不斷增多的內容和讀者。強調他們控制品質與論文內容完整的能力和經 驗,警告對電子出版及發行流程的成本低估及作業的要求,並堅持現有的付費模式沒有任何替 代方案。面對網際網路的新世界, 他們警告流失學術傳播品質的危機。出版社看到,開放近用不 僅威脅良好的學刊文化,對資訊基礎建設的投資、工作職位, 甚至整個學術都是威脅。根據出版 社的說法,近用知識仍有賴商業資訊供應商所提供的商品與服務。 The points of view are no less diametrically opposed when it comes to copyright and the question of what and whose interests this is supposed to protect. For artists who live by their creativity, the significance of copyright is not the same as it is for academics whose livelihoods are guaranteed by their salaried positions and whose main interest as a rule lies in their academic results being accessible to as broad a public as possible. In particular, many scientists and scholars see that they are surrendering extensive rights to the publishers in their publishing contracts. They are of the opinion that copyright, at least where it has an effect on science or scholarship, ultimately serves the interests not of the author, but above all of the publishing industry. Not only many academics, but also other institutions and organisations with a public remit, such as public-service broadcasters, schools, cultural institutions and consumer protection organisations, see the restriction of rights in the digital media more and more as a problem. With increasing vehemence, many are demanding a simple and unambiguous right of use, which for example would allow authors, after a defined embargo period, to make their own work available on their own homepages or on an institutional document server for non- commercial use. 談到著作權及保護誰的利益和什麼利益時, 各方觀點截然不同。著作權對仰賴創造力為生的藝術 家,其意義絕對不同於領薪水的學者, 學術成果儘可能被公眾近用, 才是學者的主要利益來源; 特 別是,許多科學家和學者以合約方式, 把全部的權利讓渡給出版社; 他們認為著作權對科學或學 術的影響,不祗是作者的利益,還包括出版業的利益。不祗是學術界,還有很多服務公眾的機 構和組織,如廣播公司、學校、文化機構和消費者保護組織,對於限制數位媒體的權利, 感受威 脅。爭論漸趨強烈, 很多人都要求一個簡單明瞭的使用權,其中包括經過相當的禁錮期後, 允許 作者把自己的作品置於自己的網頁, 或置於機構文件伺服器裡, 供非商業使用。 The publishers also invoke the authors in this regard, because they see themselves as the guardians of authors’ interests. Copyright is a necessary legal framework that creates legal security and without it, commercial activity would be impossible. It takes the interests of both authors and publishers into account. 出版社還呼籲作者,因為他們自視為作者利益的監護人。著作權是必要的法律框架,建立法律 保障; 少了它,不可能有商業活動。它考慮作者和出版社雙方的利益。
  4. 4. Without the exploitation rights defined in copyright law, there would be no safeguard for publishers’ investment and thus the framework which supports the whole publishing system would simply not exist. For this reason, the publishing side has hitherto vehemently opposed the demands for generous rights of exploitation for the authors, and any legislation initiatives to this effect. 若沒有在著作權裡界定使用的權利,就不能保障出版社的投資,支撐整個出版系統的框架, 將根 本不存在。因此,出版方始終強烈反對給作者慷慨的權利,以及任何具有此等效應的立法舉 措。 Apart from academia and publishers, the Open Access debate is increasingly extending to other institutions with a public remit, in particular a cultural public remit. For some, Open Access represents the possibility of updating their remit and opening up new fields of activity for themselves. The declared aim is always to make publicly funded knowledge available to the public quickly and free of charge (or at least, affordably). For libraries, the theme of Open Access is thus vital, as they are the ones suffering particularly from having to pay the increasing costs of academic publications while their budgets stagnate, and they therefore see no solution but to cancel subscriptions. This has a negative effect for library users, and of course is not in the publishers’ interests either. Admittedly, some libraries also feel that resolutely implemented Open Access would inevitably lead to structural and administrative changes in universities and other academic institutions, and thus to a change in their importance and responsibilities. 除了學術界和出版社之外,開放近用的爭論延伸至其他公益機構,特別是文化公益的範圍。對 於某些人來說,開放近用更新他們公益與開創新活動領域的可能性。公布的目標始終是, 以公帑 資助的知識, 應快速、免費的(或至少是經濟實惠的)提供給公眾。對圖書館而言,開放近用的主 題很必要,因為他們才是深受其苦, 尤其是在預算停滯, 卻必須支付日增的取得學術出版品費 用,逼得祗能停訂。對圖書館使用者有負面的作用,當然出版社的利益不受影響。誠然,有些 圖書館認為,落實開放近用將不可避免地導致大學和其他學術機的構結構性和行政性改變,從 而改變其重要性和責任。 In recent years, university publishing houses of German universities have witnessed a minirenaissance in that they have been newly founded or restructured with the remit of online publishing under Open Access conditions. In this process, they are developing innovative approaches, both technically and in the field of business models. In the schools sector, in the public-service media, in the Standing Conference of State Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs, in consumer protection, and in many other sectors with a cultural sphere of activity, there is a hope of better access to information and a minimisation of thresholds and barriers. 近年來,德國大學的出版社目睹此迷你文藝復興, 在開放近用的前提下, 得到新的經費, 重組線上 出版的公益。在這個過程中,發展創新的技術和商業模式。學校、公共服務媒體、德國各邦教 育與文化事物部長常務會議、消費者保護,及其他與文化領域相關的部門,有共同的願望,期 待更佳的近用資訊與最小的門檻和障礙。 Another area of discussion, albeit one that is not a focus of attention, is free access to information held by public authorities and similar publicly funded bodies. The demand for Open Access seems to many to be incomplete while information not subject to data-protection constraints, such as geographical,
  5. 5. geological or climatological data held by ministries or planning and environmental authorities, is also not made freely available to the public and therefore to research. In archives, museums and other cultural heritage institutions, the debate on Open Access will doubtlessly intensify. 還有一個沒有那麼受關注的議題,自由近用公部門及公帑資助機構的資訊。開放近用的需求似 乎不完整, 因為資料不是資料保護的範圍,由環境主管部們掌握的資訊, 如地理、地質或氣候資 料等, 也沒有免費提供給公眾, 不能被研究。在檔案館、博物館和其他文化遺產機構間,對開放 近用的爭論, 無疑地將愈來愈熱烈。 This article is intended to cast some light on the controversies that exist in connection with Open Access. It has shown that the fracture lines that currently exist, in particular between academia and the publishing houses, are not negligible. But at the same time, it would be wrong to paint a simple black- and-white picture. Neither of the camps is monolithic, and both show pioneering spirit and a readiness to innovate on the one hand and defensive tendencies and obstinacy on the other. ‘When the wind of change blows,’ says a Chinese proverb, ‘some build walls and the others windmills.’ At the moment, both walls and windmills are being built on both sides. But there is certainly room for hope that one day the consensus will be broad enough to build windmills together, or — to be coherent with the current potentials — entire wind-farms. 本文旨在發掘與開放近用相關的爭論。學術界和出版社的鴻溝,是不容忽視的; 但是, 把它歸類 成黑白版圖, 也不正確。雙方陣營也不是一致的,一方面表現出開拓進取的精神和創新的意願, 另一方面防禦傾向和頑抗也所在多有。'風起的時候',中國諺語云, '有人築牆有人造風車', 雙方 都在築牆與造風車, 不過, 還是有達成共識的一天, 讓大家一起建風車, 或 — 結合現有的潛力 — 整個風力農場。 p. 75-79 Open Access: Opportunities and challenges. A handbook [開放近用 : 機會及挑戰] / 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