1) The rapid growth in the number of published academic articles has created difficulties for traditional publishing models and information overload. 2) While the internet has created new opportunities for knowledge sharing, the transfer of traditional publishing systems online has also brought exclusive access rights that restrict information access. 3) In response, some scholars are establishing their own open access electronic journals, and self-archiving preprints and postprints online, though publishers argue this undermines their business models.

1. Introduction: Quo vadis, Knowledge Society? / By Richard Sietmann, Science Journalist
緒論: 現況, 知識社會 / 理查·希特曼, 科學記者
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.
科學和學術, 換言之, 就是知識的創造者, 大部份包含於資訊的處理。新知識掘起於研究既有作
品、交換創意、連結創意及與其他學科相連。任何限制近用學術資訊的行為, 都成為取得新見解
的絆腳石, 無法預見新知的有效性。因此, 藉助出版研究成果, 使其被近用, 才能彰顯研究過程的
效率。
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, 下述的發展對傳統的出版業形成困境: 全球化, 有一百多萬篇經同儕評閱的論文, 在 23,000
種學刊出版, 90%可以從線上讀取(註 1)。工業化社會承受資訊超載, 在「不出版就出局」的邏輯
下, 論文的出版量爆增; 在成本劇增的前提下, 圖書館不能繼續保證供應無虞的文獻, 研究者很難
掌握其領域內的相關出版品。
註 1: Ware, Mark, ‘Scientific Publishing in Transition: An Overview of Current Developments’ [轉型
中的科學出版: 綜觀當代發展], 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.
直到現在, 在網際網路出版的研究資訊, 仍追隨印本學刊的付費模式。學術機構付費, 取得線上近
用該等資訊的權力, 師生才能無經濟壓力地使用學刊。為了自身的研究, 科學家、學者和學生必
須使用 Reed Elsevier, Thomson Scientific, Springer, or Wiley 等學術出版商的搜尋引擎, 排比有興
趣的相關論文, 然而, 這些學術出版商的搜尋引擎非常落伍; 谷歌學術或華斯高之類的學術性超搜
尋引擎, 不受限於個別出版商, 研究者的圖書館或機構已經付費, 就可以直接取得全文。

2. 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.
沒有任何機構或圖書館具有購買所有電子學刊的能力, 師生和其他人一樣, 瀏覽研究成果後, 停在
出版社的網站前, 每篇文章付費 25 至 30 歐元(相當於新臺幣 1000 多元), 才能下載全文。在這種
計次付費的前提下, 以信用卡付費取得全文後, 才知道是否值得。
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、一般人、研發者、病患、教師及記者, 於尋找新知供私人或專業使用時, 都須面對知識
花園的收費大門。多數使用者面對兩個諷刺的情況: 學術可以在網際網路之類的知識網路平台取
得, 但是, 傳統的出版系統轉換至虛擬空間時, 同時要求特許的近用權。知名學者及科學家將這種
近用障礙視為產生新知的阻礙, 因為, 自由交換思想及創意是研究先決條件, 受阻後, 必然導致研
究無法進行(註 2)。相對地, 科技醫學學刊的出版社發表宣言, 主張'著作權保護著者及出版社的投
資', 以及'尊重著作權才能鼓勵資訊流動, 酬報創作者及企業家'(註 3)。
註 2: Open letter by 25 Nobel prize-winners to the US Congress [25 位諾貝爾獎得主給美國國會的公
開信]: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2004/08/nobel082604.pdf.
註 3: Brussels Declarations on STM Publishing [布魯塞爾科技醫學出版宣言]. http://www.stm-
assoc.org/brussels-declaration/.
E-Science•••••••••••••••
E 化科學
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’

3. rather than a ‘user pays’ model.
這種情況已有若干改變。以網站為電子學刊的平台, 已經是相對簡單的事, 許多學者和科學家已
活躍於此領域。藉著軟件工具和編輯系統之助，建立從提交稿件、審查至批准的流程，為自己
的社群成立獨立的傳播平台。開放近用學刊目錄已收錄 2,500 多種可自由近用的學刊, 相當於所
有科學學刊的 10 ％(註 4)。針對此發展態勢, 若干出版社提供作者選擇權, 在'作者付費'之後, 其
論文可以自由地被近用, 不再受限於'讀者付費'模式。
註 4: Directory of Open Access Journals, http://www.doaj.org (as of March 2007, 2597, 2009 年 2 月,
已成長至 3888 種)
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.
很多開放近用期刊採取'作者付費'模式，將傳統的期刊轉移到網際網路, 但還有其他完全不同形
式的出版品問世。以電子形式撰寫的學位論文, 已經上網, 如: 德國國家圖書館的線上論文(註
5)。越來越多學者和科學家將他們的簡報、調查報告、立場聲明、講稿等, 所謂的'灰色文獻', 上
傳至自己的網路空間、機構的伺服器或外部的電子典藏所。在若干前提上, 有些出版社已經允許
作者將待審查的稿件(預印本)或通過審查經過排版的論文(已印本), 放在典藏所. 這兩個程序彼此
之間沒有衝突。前述的出版宣言裡, 出版社抱怨, 已經準備出版的稿件'自我典藏'之後, 可以經由
典藏所自由地近用, 造成其訂閱費的不穩定, 以及破壞同儕評閱制度。
註 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

4. 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.
開放近用典藏所目錄已列出 852 個典藏所, 由機構或圖書館運作, 其中半數在歐洲, 三分之一在北
美洲(註 6)。這些典藏所不但使原始的研究資料得以被近用, 也長期地典藏它們。耗費極大才得
到的這些資料, 來自衛星任務、全球探測網路、大型基礎研究實驗, 以及臨床研究和調查統計, 它
的重要性在於, 可供同領域的學者追溯、可信及再利用。科學共享推動的典藏所(註 7), 將出版品
的伺服器轉換為學刊論文的'開放典藏所', 成為新型態的網路節點, 供研究使用的網頁 2.0, 被稱為
電子科學。此概念泛指服務的基礎建設, 藉以近用一手科資料及建立網路為基礎的合作模式。根
據此願景, 科學家和學者將在工具及服務為基礎上, 進行計畫相關的虛擬組織合作, 媒體整合型
的'資料探勘', 以及近用至大範圍的異質資料典藏, 高能物理學者在他們的實驗上, 已經將此概念
付諸實施。
註 6: The Directory of Open Access Repositories - (OpenDOAR) [開放近用典藏所目錄],
http://www.opendoar.org (as of March 2007: Europe 419, North America 279; 2008 年 10 月, 總計
1366, 非洲 19、亞洲 140、澳洲及大洋洲 73、加勒比海 1、中美洲 1、歐洲 605、北美洲 371、南
美洲 56,).
註 7: Science Commons: The Neurocommons [科學共享: 神經科學],
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?
把學術出版轉移到網際網路, 不祗是轉換媒體而已, 並不像把傳統郵件轉移至電子郵件那麼簡單,
也不是用出版社的入口網頁取代圖書館, 或下載 PDF 檔案取代影印學刊論文。它暴露出隱藏的
結構性矛盾, 主要的問題在於誰以何種方式付了多少錢。在公立機構裡, 應以納稅人的錢取得科
技資訊嗎? 或將公帑贊助的計畫視為自由商品? 或者把它視為'商品, 資訊產品或服務, 可以交易
及銷售, 也就是它有市場'(註 8)? 付費近用和開放近是兩種互相排斥的概念, 電子出版對傳統的業
者帶來嚴峻的考驗。如果, 最終使用者可以免費近用, 誰要確保其品質呢? 誰要買單必要的基礎
建設, 才能讓這這些資訊展演、近用及儲存?

5. 註 8: Programme of the German Federal Government, ‘1996–2000 Information als Rohstoff für
Innovation’, BMBF, 1996, p. 19.
Role distribution••••••••••
散播的角色
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’(註 9).
傳統上，由出版社提供傳播的服務, 不但執行同儕評閱, 面對愈來愈破碎的學科, 還需出版新的學
刊做為該專家社群的傳播平台。在這些活動中，大型出版社的主要義務是最大化股東的利益, 與
小出版社和由學會成立的'非營利'出版社競爭, 這些'非營利'出版社把利潤直接回饋給學會的學術
活動。依科技醫學出版社的想法, 科學出版品的市場不需要國家干預, '作者應可自由地在健康未
扭曲的自由市場, 出版他們的作品'。
註 9: 參見註 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， 開放近用的推動者認為，學術出版不同於其他的媒體部門。他們指出，在這個次市場
裡，公部門既是供應者也是顧客。它支付所有的費用, 包括研究費、出版費，同儕評閱費, 圖書
館購買學刊的經費等。此外，不同於媒體部門的著作權所有人, 學者和科學家沒有被支付研究成
果的論文費, 反而期望其作品能夠自由地被取用。他們的報酬來自聲譽和被學界認同, 不能直接
用金錢來衡量。他們兼具'內容提供者'和研究型讀者的身份, 自然期望他們自身及其他研究者的
作品, 可以被儘量廣泛地傳播。
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

6. 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.)
資訊提供者的危機和財務壓力, 並不是讓科學家和學者主張此種發展的誘因, 因為他們不需承受
出版系統的成本。研究人員的前程在於其出版品, 他們不必付費就可以得到出版品, 他們的興趣
僅止於發表在知名刊物上。身為讀者，他們的主要興趣不在學刊, 而是得知同儕的研究成果, 出
版與否都沒有關係。(在這個範圍裡, 少數像科學或自然之類的科技醫學學刊，將被評閱的論文
連結至編輯內容, 讓讀者得知研究政策及學術爭議的資訊。)
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.
圖書館最受上述變化影響, 傳統的中介功能變成進退兩難的困境, 資訊的供給面, 已經轉化為透過
網頁的虛擬無紙化, 不再被建物及開放時間拘束。在收費近用的環境下, 祗能經由出版社的入口
網頁近用資訊, 圖書館祗能扮演古騰堡文化遺址式的博物館角色。圖書館祗能管理網際網路之前
的資料, 或者成為數位權利管理機制的代理商, 向出版社及其附屬機構磋商近用條件。在另種環
境下, 成為機構典藏所的操作者, 負責管理、保存及長期儲存研究成果的數位檔案, 確保文化遺產
得以被後代子孫使用。
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.
這兩種環境，都是納稅人買單。例如，在'作者付費'模式下，作者或其機構付費給出版社, 換取
出版及傳播論文的服務。因此，僅是把費用是從一個部門轉換到另一個部門，即從圖書館預算
轉為研究預算。在過渡時期，此二系統並存，反而需要更多的經 費，不能並存時, 停訂電子學
刊，將造致科學和學術資訊的傳播落差。
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.
當前的動盪階段，不僅涉及投資報酬，而且還要優化知識社會資訊供給面的結構。將學術出版

7. 從古騰堡世界轉換為網絡空間, 滿足參與者的要求。即將到來的變化, 必須納入大量的技術、法
律和經濟因素。接下來的幾章, 將從參與者的各個角度, 探討各種可能發展路線的機會及風險。
本手冊企圖尋找應付此挑戰的契機。
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.
本手冊分為五章：解說開放近用名詞的內涵及其源起, 放在第一章; 三個創新的出版模式, 於第二
章介紹; 第三章探討應用開放近用後的疑問: 網際網路典藏面對什麼挑戰? 傳統的同儕評閱程序
漸趨平緩後, 如何確保資訊的品質? 近用資訊免費後, 誰支付出版過程的費用? 開放近用如何影響
著作權? 開放近用如何改變學術傳播的結構? 第四章敘述相關機構以自己的立場評論開放近用;
第五章開放近用的國際發展。
p. 12-17
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