Bron: http://explore.cogentoa.com/
Terwijl ‘open’ terrein wint, wordt aan de mate van openheid flink geknaagd. In de begindagen van de open access-beweging, op bijeenkomsten in Boedapest, Bethesda en Berlijn in 2002-2003, werd ‘open access’ nadrukkelijk gedefinieerd als méér dan alleen gratis te lezen of downloaden voor iedereen met internet. Het betekende ook dat de oorspronkelijke makers afzagen van de meeste van hun intellectuele eigendomsrechten. Men deed dit in navolging van de makers van open software. Die software wordt verstrekt met een licentie die je ‘absolutely no warranty’ geeft dat hij vrij van fouten is. Garantie tot aan de router dus. Ga je daarmee akkoord, dan mag je ermee doen wat je wilt: verspreiden, verbeteren, veranderen of vergeten.
Sommige informatieprofessionals spreken zonder blikken of blozen over open access of open data bij gratis toegang alléén.
Precies dat hadden de open access-pioniers voor ogen. Verreweg het grootste deel van de wetenschappelijke productie is tot stand gekomen met steun van belastingbetalers: boeren, burgers en bedrijven. En meebetalen is meebepalen, dus ze moeten er naar eigen goeddunken mee kunnen omgaan. De werkelijkheid benaderde tot voor kort het tegendeel. Alleen wie in het hoger onderwijs werkt of studeert, mag het lezen – mits je hogeschool of universiteit een licentie heeft afgesloten. Verspreiden, verbeteren, veranderen: het mag alleen met toestemming van de rechthebbenden. Vergelijk het met landbouwsubsidies waaraan u via de belastingen bijdraagt. U zou vreemd opkijken als alleen telers zelf hun aardappelen mochten consumeren – mits in de schil gekookt en gegeten.
Nu open wetenschap het tij mee heeft, is het noodzaak om ook de auteursrechtelijke barrières te slechten. Pas dan is de boel echt open. Maar wat zien we? Alles wat gratis is te downloaden wordt ‘open’ genoemd, zelfs al is het niet toegestaan er dingen mee te doen zonder speciale toestemming of betaling van reprorechten. Het wordt nog erger doordat sommige informatieprofessionals aan de begripsinflatie meewerken. Zij spreken zonder blikken of blozen over open access of open data bij gratis toegang alléén. Zelfs een uitgevershuis als Elsevier noemt dat laatste met opzet ‘free access’ en respecteert in de regel de betekenis van ‘open’ als gratis plus vrij van de meeste auteursrechtelijke beperkingen.
Pal staan voor de rechten van burgers in het omgaan met digitale informatie zit misschien niet in de aard van het beestje. Het is echter wel het minste wat bibliothecarissen en archivarissen zouden moeten doen. En het is bovendien goed voor hun e-mago.
Deze column verscheen in Vakblad Informatieprofessional, jaargang 20 nummer 7, 6 oktober 2016.
Posted by Frank Huysmans on 5 oktober 2016 | Posted in columns, onderwijs, onderzoek, opinie, vakpublicaties | Tagged open access, open data, open educational resources, open science, open source software
|
Hybrid animals: butterphant (http://www.boredpanda.com/animals-hybrids-photoshop/)
Since long, the university libraries (together with the Royal Library) have negotiated with scientific publishers on a national level in the so-called UKB consortium. Until recently a delegation of library directors went to the negotiation table. Dekker’s announcement triggered university rectors to declare the big deal negotiations Chefsache, as the former German Chancellor Schröder used to call it, and to take over the lead. The seat of the library consortium was taken over by university rectors representing the Association of Dutch Universities (VSNU). Library directors were still involved, functioning as linking pin between the negotiators and the needs of professors, researchers and students.
Four big deals
And not without success. Quite progressive deals were closed with Springer and SAGE. Scholars working in Dutch universities can now publish their work in gold open access in all journals of these publishers without extra costs. In these two deals, a solution was found for the pressing problem of the financial burden in the transition phase. After all, having to pay article processing charges (APCs) alongside licence fees to continuing access to the non-OA articles by researchers from outside the Netherlands wasn’t too appealing. Springer and SAGE agreed to open up their subscription journals and their open access platforms for scholars working at Dutch universities and research institutions. The latter can publish their papers in open access without paying additional APCs while the license fees for the – now hybrid – subscription journals remains roughly the same.
A somewhat less rosy picture emerged from the deal that VSNU and Elsevier announced in December 2015. Basically, the contours of the ‘agreement in principle’, the details of which are yet to be unveiled, are in the same vein as those of the Springer and SAGE deals. Publishing in open access will be without extra costs for researchers with a Dutch affiliation. However, Elsevier negotiated out a ceiling percentage of 30% open access articles in 2018 that are to be published in a selection of journals both parties still have to agree upon. Whether this will be hybrid journals only, or also open access journals (Elsevier has quite a list of such journals, as well as a megajournal open to all scientific disciplines called Heliyon) is still uncertain. Regardless, the agreement leaves it up to the universities to decide which papers of which scholars are eligible for publication in open access and which are not. (There are more pleasant tasks for university administrators.) In 2018, a reassessment of the situation will be made by both parties to see which further steps toward OA – if at all – will be taken.
What surprises most is that the agreement is completely at odds with NWO’s new open access policy.
A few weeks ago, another deal was announced, now with John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Compared with the Elsevier deal, the conditions of this one are more favourable from the universities’ point of view. From 2016-2019 – one year longer than with Elsevier – researchers at Dutch universities and affiliated research institutions will have continued access to all Wiley subscription content. Also, the deal enables publishing 100% of the Dutch papers in open access in Wiley’s hybrid journals, the number of which will increase to around 1,400 titles. But here’s the catch: in Wiley’s hybrid journals only. Wiley does have a portfolio of full OA titles. However, these are not included in the arrangement. If authors with a Dutch affiliation insist on publishing their work in one of these titles, they will have to pay APCs like everyone else. What surprises most is that this agreement is completely at odds with the new open access policy of NWO. This organization, the most important Dutch science funder, discourages hybrid open access by actually stating that this form of OA publishing will not be supported with its funds. As for VSNU itself, its web pages about its open access policy do not even mention the hybrid option.
Lees verder »
Posted by Frank Huysmans on 1 maart 2016 | Posted in beleid, English, essay, onderzoek, opinie, vakpublicaties, WareKennis | Tagged English, hybrid open access, open access, open science, piracy, piraterij, science policy, wetenschapsbeleid
|
bedrijf (zzp) en site van Frank Huysmans, bijzonder hoogleraar Information Society en onderzoeker/adviseur in media, informatie en communicatie. 