Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 17, No. 339.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/
www.princeton.edu/humanist/
Submit to: humanist@princeton.edu
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 05:30:22 +0000
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>
Subject: Open Access and its implications for the humanities
Following is a collection of messages exchanged among a few people
interested in the topic of "open access". At the suggestion of one of them,
Stevan Harnad, I am publishing the lot here on Humanist, slightly edited to
remove some irrelevant stuff. Let the discussion continue! --WM
(1)
>Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:43:05 +0100 (BST)
>From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>
>Dear Stefan & Willard,
>
>Thanks for mentioning the Humanist discussion thread.
>
>....Surely it should be mentioned that The Bryn Mawr Classical Review is
>(along with Psycoloquy) one of the very first peer-reviewed open-access
>journals, publikshed continuously since 1990!
>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/
>
>That suggests the humanities have been involved in open access from the
>very beginning. How much relative growth there has been in humanities
>self-archiving, I cannot say (though I hope a cross-discipline survey
>will soon be underway). As to the monograph literature: it has the
>special problems mentioned in our symposium: (1) Some monograph authors
>still hope for royalty revenue, (2) many are still addicted to paper
>(understandably, for long discursive texts), hence not even the online
>divide, let alone the open-access one, has yet been fully crossed in
>the world of monographs, and (3) the role of both peer review and a
>prestigious publisher's imprimatur in research monographs is a little
>more complicated than in refereed journal articles.
>
>But, in principle, I think there is no difference, and the outcome
>will be the same (though possibly later). The idea of offering authors
>(for monographs that would not break even in paper) the option of either
>inviting their research funders or institutions to subsidize a
>complementary online open-access edition (alongside the toll-access
>paper addition), or even to offer a (less expensive, but equally
>prestigious) online-only open-access edition only, under the same
>publisher, might be two interim options for now. The PsycPrints software
>might possibly help too.
>
>Cheers, Stevan
>
>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Stefan Gradmann wrote:
>
> > Hi Stevan,
> >
>...
> > By the way: almost in parallel with our discussion in Berlin the thread
> > below started to build up in the Humanist Discussion Group - I would say
> > this is rather encouraging for what we would like to do in the humanities
> > area. There seems to be some need for specific action here.
> >
> > And I will have a closer look at PsycPrints
> > (http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ ) - or rather ask my staff member
> Volker
> > John to do so (that's why he is on CC) and come back to you with any
> > evaluation results I may be able to produce.
> >
> > Best regards -- Stefan Gradmann
> >
> > ************************************************************
> > Dr. Stefan Gradmann / Virtuelle Campusbibliothek
> > Regionales Rechenzentrum der Universität Hamburg
> > Schlüterstr. 70, D-20146 Hamburg
> > Tel.: +49 (0)40 42838 3093
> > Fax.: +49 (0)40 42838 3284
> > GSM : +49 (0)170 8352623
> > E-Mail: stefan.gradmann@rrz.uni-hamburg.de
(2)
[From the undersigned on 24/10/03]
>Dear Stevan, Volker, Jim and Stefan (if I may 2/4),
>
>Thanks for all this. With some effort on our part a lively discussion on
>the topic of open access could be kept on the boil, and I certainly agree
>that this would be a very good thing. There are many members of Humanist
>with a keen interest in open access but who say very little or nothing
>because the pressures of work. (I can infer this interest and the
>inhibiting pressures from knowing a number of these people personally.)
>Hence effort from those who are willing to take the time will be needed.
>
>On this topic I do think that one has to take into account the nature of
>the humanities and what various forms of publication mean in the
>disciplines concerned. A rhythm and venues of publication suitable to the
>natural and social sciences will not, it seems to me, serve many of these
>disciplines well. If one's primary desire is to communicate, then one has
>to publish in such a way that one's intended readers are most likely
>actually to read what one has written. I'm not saying that experiments of
>various kinds should not be tried. Self-archiving of journal articles and
>conference papers seems like a good idea to me for the areas in which I
>work. As a reader I'd never be satisfied with an online version of a book
>except (a) to determine whether I wanted to buy it on paper for reading;
>(b) to grab a relatively small bit of it I happened to know about,
>providing I didn't want to read the whole; (c) if it were no longer in
>print, to save me the exorbitant cost of photocopying in the BL. The book
>I am writing at the moment will be published on paper, which is the medium
>in which I think it belongs, given my desire to communicate to many who
>simply would never read it otherwise -- and that certainly includes the
>likes of me. I have the rights to the text once it goes out of print, and
>then I'll put it online.
>
>BMCR has repeatedly been mentioned on Humanist, as Jim will know. It's my
>favourite example of a kind of publication in the humanities well suited
>to the online medium. Stoa has been repeatedly mentioned as well,
>particularly for the Suda Online, which is open during the editorial
>process. A brilliant idea. Two brilliant ideas.
>
>"Open" is a word like "free", whose meaning and import greatly depends on
>the preposition that implicitly follows. "Free from what?" is usually easy
>to answer -- it's whatever peril or discomfort one is escaping. "Free for
>what?" when asked often results in surprise or a less than wholly
>satisfactory answer. "Open" suggests its antonym, "closed", and that
>surely in our context is a value-laden word. I would very much like to see
>a vigorous discussion of the question, "open to what?" In my experience
>even just the willingness to open up a genuine discussion on this question
>goes a long way toward demonstrating one's bona fides to those who resist
>whatever is new.
>
>Yours,
>W
(3)
>From: "Stefan Gradmann" <stefan.gradmann@rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
>Subject: AW: Open Access and Humanities Monographs
>Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:32:31 +0200
>
>Dear Willard
>
>Thanks a lot for your reaction, too: this really makes me feel that we've
>identified an area in need of much more care and efforts than in the past
>and which until now may have been underrepresented in the open access
>discussion context.
>
>However ...
> > Thanks for all this. With some effort on our part a lively
> > discussion on the topic of open access could be kept on the
> > boil, and I certainly agree that this would be a very good
> > thing. There are many members of Humanist with a keen
> > interest in open access but who say very little or nothing
> > because the pressures of work. (I can infer this interest and
> > the inhibiting pressures from knowing a number of these
> > people personally.) Hence effort from those who are willing
> > to take the time will be needed.
>
>... The effort needed to sustain this discussion may turn out to be a major
>obstacle. Are we able to keep this discussion alive (and make it produce
>tangible, operational results!) without extra resources? I seriously doubt
>it.
> >
> > On this topic I do think that one has to take into account
> > the nature of the humanities and what various forms of
> > publication mean in the disciplines concerned. A rhythm and
> > venues of publication suitable to the natural and social
> > sciences will not, it seems to me, serve many of these
> > disciplines well. If one's primary desire is to communicate,
> > then one has to publish in such a way that one's intended
> > readers are most likely actually to read what one has
> > written. I'm not saying that experiments of various kinds
> > should not be tried. Self-archiving of journal articles and
> > conference papers seems like a good idea to me for the areas
> > in which I work. As a reader I'd never be satisfied with an
> > online version of a book except (a) to determine whether I
> > wanted to buy it on paper for reading;
> > (b) to grab a relatively small bit of it I happened to know
> > about, providing I didn't want to read the whole; (c) if it
> > were no longer in print, to save me the exorbitant cost of
> > photocopying in the BL. The book I am writing at the moment
> > will be published on paper, which is the medium in which I
> > think it belongs, given my desire to communicate to many who
> > simply would never read it otherwise -- and that certainly
> > includes the likes of me. I have the rights to the text once
> > it goes out of print, and then I'll put it online.
>
>I very much agree with all this and - from my scientific background in
>lterary theory and semiotics - would simply add that the specific relation
>between form and content, between discourse and semantics in the humanities
>is far away from the simple and robust information model cherished by most
>colleagues in the STM sector and which basically conceptualizes this
>relation as one of container and content with close to no awareness of the
>interdependency between both. This observation may lead us to introducing a
>kind of 'semiotic turn' in discussing open access in the humanities.
>
>And that leads me to a critical point: as you state, the online version of a
>book is not satisfying (and this already has caused the death of the rather
>silly e-book paradigm), and thus self-archiving of book material (even if it
>was available for the authors) may not be a solution at all. Open access to
>electronic information only gets attractive in our context once this
>material is published in a way that is appropriate to the electronic
>environment and that makes use of ist innovative potential in a way
>PDF-documents modeled on the printing analogy simply don't!
> >
> > BMCR has repeatedly been mentioned on Humanist, as Jim will
> > know. It's my favourite example of a kind of publication in
> > the humanities well suited to the online medium. Stoa has
> > been repeatedly mentioned as well, particularly for the Suda
> > Online, which is open during the editorial process. A
> > brilliant idea. Two brilliant ideas.
>
>Right.
> >
> > "Open" is a word like "free", whose meaning and import
> > greatly depends on the preposition that implicitly follows.
> > "Free from what?" is usually easy to answer -- it's whatever
> > peril or discomfort one is escaping. "Free for what?" when
> > asked often results in surprise or a less than wholly
> > satisfactory answer. "Open" suggests its antonym, "closed",
> > and that surely in our context is a value-laden word. I would
> > very much like to see a vigorous discussion of the question,
> > "open to what?" In my experience even just the willingness to
> > open up a genuine discussion on this question goes a long way
> > toward demonstrating one's bona fides to those who resist
> > whatever is new.
>
>You are perfectly right in pointing out some facets of the connotation aura
>of a term like 'open' (and much more could be said here) - I would only like
>to add that the same kind of reflexion could be made regarding the term
>'access' which may have very different connotative values depending on
>whether you use it with a 'text culture' or with an 'empiristic' background
>...
>
>I really feel that there is a lot to discuss here and I will try to figure
>out how we could give this discussion context a more specific shape and how
>to mobilize the resources we need to make it deliver more than just
>discourse but some specific contribution to the open archives movement,
>since after all we share the same overall objective with our STM colleagues
>and should always make clear that our goals are identical, Stevan is
>absolutely right concerning this point.
>
>I'll come back to this next week - for the time being I wish you (and all
>the other readers of this message) a peaceful week-end: enjoy!
>
>Best regards -- Stefan Gradmann
>
>************************************************************
>Dr. Stefan Gradmann / Virtuelle Campusbibliothek
>Regionales Rechenzentrum der Universität Hamburg
>Schlüterstr. 70, D-20146 Hamburg
>Tel.: +49 (0)40 42838 3093
>Fax.: +49 (0)40 42838 3284
>GSM : +49 (0)170 8352623
>E-Mail: stefan.gradmann@rrz.uni-hamburg.de
(4)
>Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:19:46 +0100 (BST)
>From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: AW: Open Access and Humanities Monographs
>
>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Stefan Gradmann wrote:
>
> > [Willard,] as you state, the online version of a
> > book is not satisfying (and this already has caused the death of the
rather
> > silly e-book paradigm), and thus self-archiving of book material (even
> if it
> > was available for the authors) may not be a solution at all. Open
access to
> > electronic information only gets attractive in our context once this
> > material is published in a way that is appropriate to the electronic
> > environment and that makes use of ist innovative potential in a way
> > PDF-documents modeled on the printing analogy simply don't!
>
>I *completely* disagree! Consider the following (I think much more
>realistic) logic:
>
>(1) It is a *good* thing that online access to full-text monographs is
>not as attractive as having the book on paper. That removes one
>prima-facie obstacle to self-archiving them and thereby providing open
>access for those who cannot afford to buy the monograph yet might still
>make some use of the text!
>
>(2) Once open access -- reminder: that means toll-free full-text online
>access for anyone on the web -- becomes widespread for monographs, there
>will be much more motivation for designing ways to make online access
>more convenient, useful, effective.
>
>It makes no sense whatsoever *not* to self-archive a monograph merely
>because online access may not be optimal! It's certainly 100% better
>than no access! (This reasoning is simply the flip-side of the equally
>self-paralytic reasoning that they should not be self-archived because
>they *would* be preferred over the paper version! At least the latter
>would have a publisher, and possibly a royalty-seeking author to endorse
>the reasoning; but with the online-is-nonoptimal argument it is purely
>a rationalization for inaction! No losers; no winners.)
>
> >wm> "Open" is a word like "free", whose meaning and import
> >wm> greatly depends on the preposition that implicitly follows.
> >
> > You are perfectly right in pointing out some facets of the connotation
aura
> > of a term like 'open' (and much more could be said here) - I would only
> like
> > to add that the same kind of reflexion could be made regarding the term
> > 'access' which may have very different connotative values depending on
> > whether you use it with a 'text culture' or with an 'empiristic'
background
> > ...
>
>It is here that I feel that we non-hermeneuticists and non-semioticians
>may have a bit of an advantage, in not getting too wrapped up in
>far-fetched connotations. Here is a black and white distinction:
>
>(1) 2,500,000 articles in 24,000 journals can only be read online if the
>user's institution can afford to pay the access tolls.
>
>(2) Open access means being able to do the same thing as those lucky
>users, but without having to be at an institution that can afford the
>access tolls.
>
>Open access is not about access to the printed edition. (But the online
>edition can always be printed off, if one wishes.)
>
>No philosophical problem. It is clear what we do not have now, and what
>we would have if there were open access to the journal article
>literature. Ditto for the monograph literature. (And note that nothing
>was said about the superiority or even parity of online access compared
>to on-paper access for monographs. It's only about about tolled
>vs. toll-free online access.)
>
>Cheers, Stevan
(5)
>Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:56:21 +0200
>From: Katja Mruck <mruck@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
>Subject: Re: AW: Open Access and Humanities Monographs
>
>so hello to all, & let me join the discussion from berlin, germany ;-)
>
> > > [Willard,] as you state, the online version of a
> > > book is not satisfying (and this already has caused the death of the
> rather
> > > silly e-book paradigm), and thus self-archiving of book material
> (even if it
> > > was available for the authors) may not be a solution at all. Open
> access to
> > > electronic information only gets attractive in our context once this
> > > material is published in a way that is appropriate to the electronic
> > > environment and that makes use of ist innovative potential in a way
> > > PDF-documents modeled on the printing analogy simply don't!
> >
> > I *completely* disagree! Consider the following (I think much more
> > realistic) logic:
>
>i would not completely disagree: i think the arguments are proper
>according to Willard´s context & interests. But there are also other
>interests, & as the editor of a multilingual open access journal
>(english, german, spanish) which is used by many social scientists all
>over the world i know that also in the case of monographs for some of
>them, working under difficult conditions & with very limited resources,
>a non-optimal access indeed is "100% better than no access." so for
>example we make available also monographs (pdf files) on qualitative
>research methods in the spanish language, cause such texts are difficult
>to get in some latin american countries (the same is true for english
>texts, as i know from colleagues in asia or in some african countries).
>partly, also internet access should not be the only way to provide
>information: for some of them even the download costs are so expensive
>(& their computer equipment is so poor) that we currently discuss to
>provide CDs -- in some cases, as one possible alternative, also better
>than no access. in these cases the internet gave us a chance to
>establish networks, serving different purposes in different ways. the
>main aim, for sure, is to distribute knowledge as far as possible ...
>
>all my best,
>katja
>
>--
>FQS - Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung
>/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research (ISSN 1438-5627)
>English -> http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm
>German -> http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs.htm
>Spanish -> http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-s.htm
>
>Please sign the Budapest Open Access Initiative:
>http://www.soros.org/openaccess/
(6)
[From the undersigned on 25/10/03]
>Dear all,
>
>Speaking as someone with remarkably common purpose to yours -- to improve
>the conditions of scholarship for our colleagues -- I want to see certain
>changes happen. These include online self-archiving, esp if it is done in
>a responsible, organized way, as Stevan has done. But I keep in mind what
>a Stanford economist demonstrated in a conference session I participated
>in some years ago: academic publishing is one part of a system of highly
>interdependent components. Change one component, he argued, and
>system-wide effects follow. Hence if we want to be practical we have to
>consider how to deal with the whole system. In my earlier note I was
>reflecting on what many years of experience tell me about my colleagues in
>the humanities and the ideals that underpin humanistic practice to this
>day. Quite apart from the conservatism (which isn't entirely a bad thing,
>insofar as it conserves what we wish to see last) there's the fact that
>humanists are fundamentally dedicated to asking questions, to
>problematizing what has formerly seemed unproblematic. So, I'd think that
>if we go forward proclaiming "open access!" we should expect the very
>folks we most want to persuade to be the ones who poke at our ideas to see
>how intelligent they really are. I wasn't just being cute or far-fetched
>with words, I was taking them seriously as vehicles of meaning. Is that
>not what we want our readers to do? Whether we do or not, many of them will.
>
>As to the following,
>
>>(1) It is a *good* thing that online access to full-text monographs is
>>not as attractive as having the book on paper. That removes one
>>prima-facie obstacle to self-archiving them and thereby providing open
>>access for those who cannot afford to buy the monograph yet might still
>>make some use of the text!
>>
>>(2) Once open access -- reminder: that means toll-free full-text online
>>access for anyone on the web -- becomes widespread for monographs, there
>>will be much more motivation for designing ways to make online access
>>more convenient, useful, effective.
>>
>>It makes no sense whatsoever *not* to self-archive a monograph merely
>>because online access may not be optimal! It's certainly 100% better
>>than no access! (This reasoning is simply the flip-side of the equally
>>self-paralytic reasoning that they should not be self-archived because
>>they *would* be preferred over the paper version! At least the latter
>>would have a publisher, and possibly a royalty-seeking author to endorse
>>the reasoning; but with the online-is-nonoptimal argument it is purely
>>a rationalization for inaction! No losers; no winners.)
>
>Whatever I may say, you would observe in my daily behaviour that I eagerly
>fall on online materials useful to my research, including the odd
>monograph. So in the short term I would be among the most voracious and,
>I'd hope, among the most grateful. But for any monograph that I really
>valued, I would want to have it on paper. For the long term I worry that
>unless we take great care the printed version of the monograph will become
>a rare and even more absurdly expensive item than it is now. It's simply
>not good enough to wave one's hands at an imagined future in which somehow
>the online version will be as welcome and useful as the printed codex.
>
>Of course the passion in that last statement is not about the sort of
>codices that Kluwer, say, tends to publish -- monographs and collections
>of papers on rapidly changing topics, atrociously designed, sloppily
>edited if at all, hardly proofread and often well over £100 each. A
>downloaded, laser-printed, hole-punched version in a binder would be fine
>most of the time for that sort of thing. But the sort of books I buy
>aren't like that, and the like of those I want to be sure survive our
>revolution.
>
>Of course if I *cannot* get access to such a book on paper, then online
>access would be better. But that would have to mean that I could not find
>or afford a used copy. I am most definitely not making a
>"online-is-nonoptimal argument", any more than I would argue that not
>having a house to live in is non-optimal. An online monograph is a
>*different* thing. The difference can matter a very great deal.
>
>I have indeed noted that
>
>>...nothing
>>was said about the superiority or even parity of online access compared
>>to on-paper access for monographs. It's only about about tolled
>>vs. toll-free online access.)
>
>I just think there's a great deal more involved -- hence a *very*
>interesting and needful discussion in the making.
>
>Yours,
>W
(7)
>Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:07:35 +0100 (BST)
>From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Open Access and Humanities Monographs
>
>...
>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Willard McCarty wrote:
>
> > I'd think that if we go forward proclaiming "open
> > access!" we should expect the very folks we most want to persuade to
be the
> > ones who poke at our ideas to see how intelligent they really are.
>
>By all means! Let all interested parties poke. That is why I suggest this
>exchange all be posted rather than in camera.
>
>"Open access" is the homologous term (uncontested) for the journal
>article literature. It seems the natural one to extend to the monograph
>literature, but always accompanied by the ready expansion to "toll-free
>access to the full-text online" adding "so as to make our research
>accessible online to all would-be users who cannot afford to pay to access
>it, online or on paper." And add also: "for the sake of maximizing the
>usage and impact of our research."
>
>Then the discussion can focus on whether or not monographs differ in any
>substantive way from journal articles with respect to either the
>desirability or the means of providing open access to them in order to
>maximize their usage and impact.
>
> > Whatever I may say, you would observe in my daily behaviour that I eagerly
> > fall on online materials useful to my research, including the odd
> > monograph. So in the short term I would be among the most voracious and,
> > I'd hope, among the most grateful. But for any monograph that I really
> > valued, I would want to have it on paper.
>
>Fine. Have it on paper then, if you can afford it. (Otherwise just print
>it off.)
>
> > For the long term I worry that
> > unless we take great care the printed version of the monograph will become
> > a rare and even more absurdly expensive item than it is now.
>
>A distinct possibility (in any case!), but to be carefully weighed
>against the disadvantages of needlessly blocking access to would-be users
>as in Gutenberg days, both today and in the long term, now that there is
>another option open.
>
> > It's simply
> > not good enough to wave one's hands at an imagined future in which somehow
> > the online version will be as welcome and useful as the printed codex.
>
>No hand-waving and no imagining. Just access-provision, now.
>
> > A downloaded,
> > laser-printed, hole-punched version in a binder would be fine most of the
> > time... But the sort of books I buy aren't like that,
> > and the like of those I want to be sure survive our revolution.
>
>To repeat: This is for providing access to those potential users who
>cannot afford to buy, and for whom online access is the difference
>between something and nothing.
>
> > Of course if I *cannot* get access to such a book on paper, then online
> > access would be better.
>
>That is what this is about: Putting an end to lost research impact
>because would-be users could not afford access. This is a huge problem
>with journal articles. My guess is that it is true of monographs too,
>especially the esoteric, expensive ones few libraries and individuals
>can afford to buy. Do authors want to go on knowingly having their
>usage, citation, application constrained by ability to pay for access,
>as in Gutenberg days, or do they want to make use of the potential of
>the online medium of providing open access to their research monographs?
>
>Stevan Harnad
(8)
>Subject: Re: Open Access and Humanities Monographs
>FROM: "James J. O'Donnell" <jod@georgetown.edu>
>Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:14:54 -0400
>Stevan and Willard,
>
>I have two questions:
>
>1. What is the nature and quality of the evidence for what I take to be
>the implicit assumption, that there is humanistic monograph literature
>that is now not reaching its desired audience? What literature is not
>reaching whom? Knowing that would help calibrate how large an effort is
>needed and where to exercise leverage and who would pay the costs.
>
>2. University presses fear for their lives as sales drop. Would open
>access further damage their position? It would be ironic and, by some at
>least, deplored if the open access movement that began, at least, to
>lubricate the movement of work impeded by the control of large for-profit
>publishers should turn out to be bad news sooner for small
>not-for-profits. The risk there is that scholars who *need* that univ.
>press blessing for their tenure would lose out and the flourishing of
>scholarship thereby harmed.
>
>Jim O'Donnell
(9)
[from the undersigned on 25/10/03]
>Jim et al,
>
>I worry very much about (2). But it's not only the candidates for tenure
>that would lose. What bothers me (who is secure in his job) is that our
>ability to communicate might be severely attenuated.
>
>But shall we continue this on Humanist?
>
>W
Dr Willard McCarty | Senior Lecturer | Centre for Computing in the
Humanities | King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS || +44 (0)20
7848-2784 fax: -2980 || willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk
www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/wlm/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Oct 26 2003 - 01:05:14 EST