Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand Policy Workshop - November 2014
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•585 views
My talk at the CCANZ Open Access Policy workshop, Wellington, November 24 2014
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand Policy Workshop - November 2014
Similar to Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand Policy Workshop - November 2014 (8)
More from Fabiana Kubke
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand Policy Workshop - November 2014
- 1. Open Access Aotearoa CCANZ WORKSHOP 24 NOVEMBER 2014 Fabiana Kubke
- 2. Scientific Publishing is Born Title page of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol. I From Wikipedia.org
- 3. Peer Endorsement CC-BY-SA by AJC1 - Flickr
- 4. Discovery CC-BY by a trying youth - Flickr
- 5. Access CC-BY-SA by archer10 (Dennis) - Flickr
- 6. Publish or Perish CC-BY by jbj - Flickr
- 7. Reach CC-BY by mattwi1s0n - Flickr
- 8. Restrictions CC-BY-SA by Bindalfrodo - Flickr
- 9. ArXiv CC-BY by shonk - FLickr
- 10. Excess CC-BY by net_efekt - Flickr
- 11. Open Access is Born CC-BY-SA by h_pampel - Flickr
- 12. What is open access… …and why is it necessary?
- 13. Green vs. Gold CC-BY by *sax - Flickr
- 14. Free vs. Libre CC-BY-SA by openDemocracy - FLickr
- 15. Example CC-BY-SA javierdevilman - Flickr
- 16. Example CC-BY-ND by PAHO/WHO - FLickr
- 17. Robert K Merton (1910-2003) Communalism – the common ownership of scientific discoveries, according to which scientists give up intellectual property in exchange for recognition and esteem. Universalism – according to which claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, or nationality; Disinterestedness – according to which scientists are rewarded for acting in ways that outwardly appear to be selfless; Organized skepticism – all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny. CUDOS (From Wikipedia.org
- 18. Commodification CC-BY-ND by HikingArtist.com - Flicr
- 19. Expenditure CC-BY by photosteve101 - Flickr
- 20. Behind CC-BY-ND by h.koppdelaney - Flickr
- 21. Challenges CC-BY by spablab - Flickr
- 22. Fear CC-BY by -closed- look 4 /MyVisualPoetry - Flickr
- 23. Safe CC-BY-SA by knezovjb - Flickr
- 24. In the right hands CC-BY by Stf.O - Flickr
- 25. The whole picture CC-BY-SA by hms831 - Flickr
- 26. Fund the cake and eat it too CC-BY by slubdresden - Flickr
- 27. M Fabiana Kubke Chair, Advisory Panel, Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand University of Auckland
Editor's Notes
- The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society launched in 1665 as the first scientific publication with the aim of helping establish precedence to scientific findings. Since then the printed journal has served the research community as the vehicle through which not just precedence, but peer esteem could be established.
- The peer review system which provides endorsement from discipline-specific peers helps others measure the value of individual researchers’ contributions to the literature
- Journal indexing, in turn help researchers and non-researchers alike discover new findings.
- Library subscriptions to journals have traditionally served the role of disseminating this knowledge, not just to members of the academic community but to the local population as well. Printed issues placed on the shelves of libraries were accessible to anyone who could walk through a University library door.
- By the end of the 20th century the pressure on researchers to publish or perish combined with an increasing size of active researchers meant that the volume of academic journals had grown beyond what libraries could subscribe to (or researchers keep up with). Despite this, the reward system continued to value the published paper as the major means to measure the contribution of individual researchers and research groups, despite growing evidence that a vast amount of what is published is neither read nor cited.
- The growth of the internet offered new opportunities. Even without reducing the number of published articles, search engines and rapid and universal access, could help discovering relevant articles easier and putting them in the hands of those who could put them to good use.
- This of course became a challenge for publishers - accustomed to the centralised control of purchased content (through libraries) making individual articles available through the internet meant the establishment of paywalls to access the content of those articles. With the move from print to digital collections, non-academics had a new hurdle to overcome. Rather than easily finding content on a shelf at their local university library, accessing the content to which libraries subscribed required them to have a login to access the content. The academic publishing model meant that for academic content the internet, rather than becoming the democratising force for content, was being exploited to increase profits for publishing houses.
- By the 1990’s it had become clear that scientific publishing could exploit the opportunities offered by the internet. ArchivX opened its doors in 1991 and other attempts at self-publishing by researchers were peppered during that decade.
- Justifying the large fees paid to publishers for access to research became increasingly difficult to justify - especially when considering that a large corpus of what was published was research paid from the public purse, that the content was generated free of charge to the publishers, and that the peer review was provided by other researchers free of charge.
- By the year 2000 BioMed Central had launched as an alternative to publishing in the biomedical sciences, the momentum for the Open Access movement had taken off and the first definition of Open Access was agreed to in 2002 in Budapest. It wouldn’t take long for funding agencies to begin to require that the works resulting from their funding be made open access and several institutions have since also mandated or encouraged similar requirements from their academics.
- In its broadest definition Open Access is used to refer to free-of-charge access to the academic literature. Open access in this context does not specify what rights, if any, the reader has to “exploit” the copyrighted material.
- Within this broad view of open access the mechanism by which the article is made available to view are referred to as green or gold, where gold refers to the article being made publicly available by the publisher and green to the article (or one of its versions) being made available by the authors or their institutions. While this are the most commonly known versions of Open Access, they describe a distribution mechanism for content, but not how (or if) the content can be reused.
- In its purest definition. Open Access is defined as a mechanism that offers not only the ability to access but also to reuse the content with as few restrictions as possible. This means that the holder of the copyright provides a suitable licence that removes the copyright restrictions defined by copyright legislation, other than the right to be appropriately attributed as an author of the work. This type of Open Access is sometimes referred to as “libre”, meaning that re-use is allowed as opposed to “free”, where there are no costs for viewing the content, but re-use is not allowed. In other words, a true Open Access article allows reuse and repurposing of the article or its parts. It is important to emphasise that Green and Gold Open Access do not speak to whether an article is fee or libre and as such are not useful definitions when it comes to establishing the copyright freedoms that one has with respect to the work.
- Let’s look at an example. Say I find an article in Chagas disease, a disease that affects a large population in South america. Say it is published in a journal that cannot be accessed through legal mechanisms in South America. If the article is published under green or gold it means that anyone, say in Argentina, can access the article.
- But only if it is published under “libre” open access can this article be translated to Spanish or Portuguese (the language of the health carers of the affected people) and parts of it included in spanish wikipedia, where it can reach those who can benefit the most from the work. Neither gold nor green guarantee this - only the appropriate Libre copyright licence does. The libre vs free definition is therefore the most important to consider when thinking about open access because it is the only one that can be used to determine whether a piece of work meets the Budapest Open Access Definition of reuse.
- Robert Merton who spent a long part of his career studying the sociology of science and suggested a set of norms that dominate science. Communalism – the common ownership of scientific discoveries, according to which scientists give up intellectual property in exchange for recognition and esteem. Universalism – according to which claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, or nationality; Disinterestedness – according to which scientists are rewarded for acting in ways that outwardly appear to be selfless; Organized skepticism – all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny.
- Universities today are no longer what they used to be in Merton’s time. Shrinking research budgets, rising research population and research costs, increases in student fees, reductions in student allowance, and the expectation that universities should focus on commercialisation have shifted us away from Mertonian norms with universities, students and researchers fighting over a small slice of an increasingly smaller cake.
- The amount that universities in New Zealand spend on journal subscriptions alone is comparable to the amount spent by the Marsden Fund. On top of that, large costs are incurred in university licencing contracts that allow us limited re-use copyrighted materials for educational purposes, most of which was generated by the research academic community itself. This money that could otherwise be used to support open access, research and students leaves New Zealand and goes to fuel foreign economies.
- Yet New Zealand lags significantly behind in the adoption of Open Access Policies by funders and Universities.
- If we want to play with the big teams we need to catch up with the rest of the world in the way that we deliver our knowledge.
- And as a research community we need to overcome the fear of Open Access and the misconception that policy mandates somehow impinge on our Academic Freedom.
- Policies mandating Open Access have been in place by many funders and institutions – and those researchers remain quite healthy
- It is pointing to the advantages and case studies that dispel the fears associated with mandates that will allow us to share our knowledge more freely and put it in the hands of inventors, investors teachers and students where it can breathe a new life.
- The challenge today is to look at the wider picture – Not just access to the scholarly literature but to the variety of artifacts that are generated by the academic community – data, code, educational resources, and ask – if it was worth taking government money for, is it not also worth returning those resources to the community?