開放近用 - 簡史

831 views
760 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
831
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

開放近用 - 簡史

  1. 1. Open Access – A Historical Survey / Peter Schirmbacher, Department of Library and Information Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin 開放近用 - 簡史 / 彼得·席姆巴哈, 柏林洪堡大學圖書資訊學系 ‘Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the information is not made widely and readily available to society. New possibilities of knowledge dissemination not only through the classical form, but also and increasingly through the Open Access paradigm via the Internet have to be supported.’ This is a statement in the ‘Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities’ of October 2003(16), signed by all the leading German academic organisations and funding bodies, and in the meantime also by 227 academic institutions worldwide. '如果, 資訊不能全面且即時地被社會大眾取用, 傳播知識的任務祗算完成一半。傳播知識的管道 不以傳統的方式為限,愈來愈多的傳播管道係經由網際網路開放近用的模式。'這是取自 2003 年 10 月的'柏林宣言: 開放近用科學與人文學知識'(註 16), 由德國知名的學術機構及贊助團體發 起,接著被全球 227 個學術機構簽署。 註 16: Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities [柏林宣言 - 開放近用科學與人文學知識], http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/BerlinDeclaration_dt.pdf; 2008 年 10 月, 已有 255 個學術機構簽署 This declaration is well-known to many people, because it launched the notion of Open Access not only in Germany but worldwide. More than three years have elapsed since this conference in Berlin, and these years have made it clear that the path from public perception to constructive implementation can be a long one. On the other hand, three years is a relatively short time in light of the fact that unhindered access to the results of academic research has always occupied mankind. For a long time, the question was one of technical barriers to duplication. These were to some extent broken down only in 1452 by Gutenberg’s invention of ‘movable types’. Of no small importance was the quality of local libraries, which was decisive in determining whether one had a chance of getting hold of the latest insights of the academic community or not. Of course it has always been and still is a question of publishing economics, which even in the academic world was and is determined by supply and demand. These aspects make it clear that, in the past, preconditions and chances of realisation precluded raising the question of free access to academic information. 這項宣言釋出的概念, 不僅被德國接受, 也傳遍全世界。柏林會議已經過去三年了, 三年的時間, 足夠將此概念, 從公眾認知的階段, 邁向建設性實施的地步; 換個角度來說, 多年來期盼無阻礙地 近用學術研究成果, 在短短的三年內, 有這樣的成就, 令人欽慰。長期來看, 這個問題還是複製的 技術性障礙; 直到 1452 年, 古騰堡先生發明'活字印刷'後, 才在某個程度上, 打破此障礙。然而, 高
  2. 2. 品質的在地圖書館, 仍是取得學術圈最新見解的障礙; 當然, 在出版經濟學裡, 還是由供需率決定 資訊的傳播。很明顯地, 過去的先決條件和實現的機會, 排除自由近用學術資訊的問題。 The decisive difference today lies in the possibility to digitise research results and thus the real option of placing them at users’ disposal worldwide via the Internet. Thus the technical barriers to free access have come down. The greatest upheaval in the history of academic communication is currently under way, and it has forced a debate about a new culture of academic publishing. One component of the discussion is the confrontation with the question of whether and how we organise access to information. Technically, digitisation and the Internet create the preconditions to allow free worldwide and unrestricted access to knowledge as it appears. However, this presupposes that we can answer the question of who will bear the costs involved, as in any other form of publishing. There is a whole variety of publishing business models, which will be examined in greater detail later in this book. 今天的決定性區別, 在於把研究成果數位化,然後依使用者的意願, 把它們搬到網際網路。自由 近用的技術性障礙, 已經不存在。它掀起學術傳播史上的最大動盪, 學術出版的新文化正在激辯 中, 其中一個議題是如何安排知識近用。從技術上講,數位化和網際網路創造出一個自由無限制 全球近用資訊的先決條件。然而,必須先解決誰來承擔相關的費用,不管什麼形式的出版, 都必 須有人承擔費用。本書將檢視各種出版的商業模式。 It should be noted, however, that the upheaval in academic communication demands more than just the solution to an economic problem. The rules governing concerned actors as well as their behaviour have developed over hundreds of years. An upheaval on this scale is not easy to cope with, for almost any change carries its own dangers and can bring not just benefits for all those involved, but also effects that cannot be immediately foreseen. Criticism of Open Access comes not only from established academic publishers, but also from authors who fear for their income from authors’ contracts. Above all, the system of assessing scientific and scholarly performance, which has hitherto been organised by the publishers, could go off the rails if anyone could simply upload results on to the Internet, and if there were no longer any kudos in having articles published in reputable academic journals. 應該指出的是,動盪的學術傳播不僅要求解決經濟問題而已。學術傳播的活動, 已經歷數百年之 久。現在的動盪規模是不容易應付,幾乎任何改變帶來的, 不祗是好處, 也可能帶給自身危機, 而 且無法立即預見。對開放近用的批評, 不僅來自知名的學術出版社,也來自擔心不能依合約獲利 的作者。最重要的是,作者可任意上傳研究成果至網際網路, 不在意是否於知名學術期刊發表, 因此, 由出版社建構評鑑科學和學術績效的系統,可能走向崩解之路。 The development of the Open Access initiative makes clear the stages in the upheaval of the academic communication system. Peter Suber, one of the main voices of the Open Access initiative, has worked out a ‘Timeline of the Open Access Movement’(17), in which many details and basic data of the evolution to date are listed. The conference mentioned at the beginning of this section culminating in the Berlin Declaration was the third to be held on this subject. The first conference to deal with the
  3. 3. matter was organised by the OSI (Open Society Institute) in Budapest in December 2001. The scientists and scholars who took part in it had set themselves the goal of finding a way to bring together existing Open Access activities and, as a first step, to determine the kinds of academic literature for which free access should be made possible. On 14 February 2002 a corresponding call to an initiative appeared, which in the meantime (as of March 2007) has been signed by 4 391 individuals and 391 academic organisations: ‘An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the Internet. The public good they make possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds.’ 開放近用各種協議的發展, 明確界定學術傳播系統的各個動盪階段。開放近用協議的主要發聲 者, 彼得‧薩伯在《開放近用運動史》(註 17)一文中, 列舉相關的細目及基本資料。本節前述的會 議宣言, 是第三個協議, 也是最高點的協議。第一次的會議議題, 總結在 2001 年 12 月開放社會研 究院於布達佩斯的會議, 與會的科學家及學者將自己定位在聚集既有的開放近用活動, 認為學術 文獻應可做為自由近用的基礎。2002 年 2 月 14 日, 以通訊會議方式, 完成布達佩斯開放近用協 議, 至 2007 年 3 月, 已有 4,391 個人和 391 個學術單位簽署此協議: '傳統和科技相遇, 創造史無前 例的公共財。傳統係指科學家及學者願意不收取報酬, 在學刊出版其研究成果, 供大眾諮詢及累 積知識; 科技係指網際網路; 公共財係指經同儕評閱的學刊文獻, 以電子方式在全球各地散布, 所 有的科學家、學者、老師、學生及其他好奇的民眾, 都可以自由且無限制地近用。' 註 17: Timeline of the Open Access Movement = [開放近用運動史] / Peter Suber = [彼得‧薩 伯], http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm. This call has generally been described as the ‘birth’ of the Open Access initiative, although this does not do justice to all the activists who, years earlier, had strongly supported free access to academic information. It is often forgotten or overlooked that this first call was only concerned with guaranteeing free access to journal articles which had already undergone the peer review process and which, in parallel with publication in the journal, should be made freely available on the Internet. As a rule, this concerns only those authors who cannot expect any royalties or fees for the articles they publish. The authors of other works, for example textbooks or monographs, were therefore not to be deprived of potential income. In addition, those authors who are not remunerated directly for their academic works are called upon to place their full texts on the Internet, as is the case for dissertations and research reports. 此協議被稱為開放近用協議的'起點', 對於那些在此之前已經存在的倡議者而言, 這種稱呼並不公 平, 他們早就強烈地支持學術資訊的自由近用。人們往往忘記或忽視, 此首個協議祗關心已經進 入同儕評閱的學術期刊論文, 能夠被自由近用, 以及應該可以自由地從網際網路取得出版該論文 的學刊。因此, 僅涉及不期望收取版稅的作者, 教科書或專書等其他作品的作者, 其潛在收入並不 受影響。此外, 沒有直接從學位論文及研究報告等學術作品取得報酬的作者, 也被要求將作品全 文置於網際網路。
  4. 4. A full year later, on 11 April 2003 in Bethesda, Maryland, USA, a discussion was held on the possibilities of better integrating actors of the publication process. It resulted in the statements of the ‘Libraries and Publishers Group’ and the ‘Scientists and Scientific Societies Group’(18). The third conference, in Berlin, marked both an end point and a new start. It represented an end point in that academic policy goals had been formulated, and, as Peter Suber puts it, because a ‘BBB-definition (Budapest-Bethesda-Berlin) of Open Access’ had been established. At the same time, it represented a starting point with regard to technical and organisational questions. 整整一年後,2003 年 4 月 11 日, 專家聚集在美國馬里蘭州的畢士大,探討進一步整合出版過程 各參與者的可能, 最後形成一個由'圖書館與出版社'和'科學家和科學學會'提出的宣言(註 18)。第 三次會議在柏林舉行,即是終點也是起點。它的終點是, 學術政策的目標已經制定完成,如彼 得‧薩伯所述'開放近用的 3B 定義'已經完備。它起點是, 轉向於技術和組織的問題。 註 18: Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing = [畢士大開放近用出版宣言], Released June 20, 2003, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm. Thus the follow-up conferences in Geneva, Southampton, Potsdam and Geneva again dealt with matters of technical implementation, such as the use of the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) or the building and visibility of institutional and disciplinary repositories. A series of contributions in this handbook take a detailed look at these topics. The focus of the Southampton meeting was to call for all scientific and scholarly institutions to adopt an Open Access policy of their own in order to be able to better address researchers locally. Since then, there has been growing interest in Open Access, but it has not yet established itself as an alternative form of publication in the academic world. 後續的會議在日內瓦、南安普敦、波茨坦和日內瓦分別舉行, 探討技術應用的事項,如以開放檔 案促進會資料閘門協定或建立機構及學科典藏所。本手冊探討這些課題。南安普敦會議的重點, 是呼籲所有的科學和學術機採用自己的開放近用政策,推廣在地的研究者。從此以後,開放近 用愈來愈受重視,但還未成為學術界的另一種出版模式。 p. 24-26 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

×