Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 17, No. 350.
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
[1] From: Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com> (139)
Subject: RE: [Manifesto] Re: AW: Open Access and Humanities
Monographs
[2] From: lachance@origin.chass.utoronto.ca (Francois (69)
Lachance)
Subject: monological binary positions on Re: 17.343 open access
[3] From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk> (247)
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
[4] From: lachance@origin.chass.utoronto.ca (Francois (31)
Lachance)
Subject: Re: 17.339 Open Access and its implications for the
humanities
[5] From: "Stefan Gradmann" <stefan.gradmann@rrz.uni- (862)
hamburg.de>
Subject: AW: 17.339 Open Access and its implications for the
humanities
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:55:04 +0000
From: Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>
Subject: RE: [Manifesto] Re: AW: Open Access and Humanities Monographs
If online material is 'open' in the sense of 'free' that is of course a
great step forward, but if it's only available in pdf I'd have to agree with
Gradmann that that is decidedly sub-optimal to say the least, as we have
really moved on with regard to the technical possibilities. Not being
optimal in itself shouldn't be an excuse for not making freely available
what can be made freely available by (self)archiving in open access
repositories, but at the same time we shouldn't lose sight of the ultimate
and patently feasible goal, 'open' access (as defined in the Berlin
Declaration, the Bethesda principles, by Wellcome, PLoS, BioMed Central, and
others) as opposed to merely 'free' access. It doesn't help to be
sub-ambitious; 'free' will come in the wake of the open access movement, but
I doubt if the reverse is true. If one really wants to use literature
efficiently that often involves nowadays electronic tools to analyse,
data-mine, and text-mine the material, for which it has to be in a
machine-readable format.
Open Access really is more than just an economical goal (although it goes
without saying that being able to access literature without having to be at
an institution that can afford the access tolls helps enormously).
Perhaps the difference in approach between open access publishing and
self-archiving, while both working in parallel to strengthen one another, is
the sense of priority of a qualitative (in terms of usability) versus a
quantitative one.
Jan Velterop
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 24 October 2003 18:20
> To: Stefan Gradmann
> Cc: 'Willard McCarty'; 'Volker John'; 'James O'Donnell';
> sara.kjellberg@lub.lu.se; 'Katja Mruck'; Francis ANDRE
> >
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
> US & Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/IHFolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> bmanifesto-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:57:33 +0000
From: lachance@origin.chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance)
Subject: monological binary positions on Re: 17.343 open access
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:46:10 +0000
> From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>
>
> Books remain, however, bigger and costlier texts than articles,
> and are often not written solely or even primarily, for the
> sake of research impact but also for the sake of royalty income:
Some books are slimmer than some collections of articles and cost less.
Do your cost formulas compare salary to workers at a small university
press with salaries for marketing gurus associated with a large commercial
publisher located in a major metropolis?
Which costs paid by whom? For how long? At what point does the open
toll-free access movement meet the data warehousing speed bump?
> We do not publish our refereed research in order to keep nonprofit
> publishers in business. We publish our research to maximize its impact
> (uptake, usage, applications, citations). In the Gutenberg era the only
I am very suspicious of anyone who would pepper their discourse with
McLuhanesque periodizations such as "Gutenberg era" McLuhan's
historiography of rupture was based on some pretty appalling sexual and
social politics. Pre or post Gutenberg, some of us publish in refereed and
non-referred fora because we are avid for intellectual exchange --- and
expeirence that may be measured preceisly by an uptake of one, an uptake
that may not be measured by a referenced citation but by a personal and
private communication. Academic institutions could do well to remember
that faculty and librarians publsh not just for other members of their
professional class. Open access is not just about finessing peer review
gate keeping. It is about recognizing overwork: unfair teaching loads,
massively stressful publication expectations (both for reviewers who miss
mistakes and for writers who are rushed and do not have the opprtunity to
benefit fully from reviewers), grueling, grinding committee work.
If the vision open access were less about "maximizing impact" and more
about ensuring quality, I would have less to rant about :)
Yes I know that Stevan Harnad's vision culminates in iin the call for the
preservation of quality. It would just be nice to read that open access if
proplerly implemented can provide better quality control. For example
increasing the number of reviewers and/or publishing the number of
reviewers that read the piece before publication.
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 06:46:57 +0000
> From: "Stefan Gradmann" <stefan.gradmann@rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
>
> Seriously: we probably should remind ourselves more often of the cultural
> differences of reasoning among the humanists and the 'hard science'
> colleagues. These differences not only engender different traditions of
> knowledge organization and of information transfer (hence the
> online-is-nonoptimal argument!) but also different reading reflexes and
> habits. Willard has mentioned this earlier: many of us humanists tend to
Humanists or scientists, in and outside the academy, seasoned and newly
embarked, we should perhaps remind ourselves of the hard reality of
administration :
>From Paul Goodman _The Community of Scholars_
quoting a 1955 statement of the American Association of School
Administrators:
"The constituents of the process of Administration are:
1. Planning, to control the future in the direction of desired goals.
2. Allocation of human and material resources in accordance with the plan.
3. Stimulation or motivation of behavior toward desired actions.
4. Coordination of groups and operations into an integrated pattern.
5. Evaluation. "
Goodman doesn't cite this with approval. He thought schools should be kept
small and that administration should be minimal. He had some intersting
things to say about peers too.
Knowledge, information and wisdom : good trio to remember when trying to
think through and imagine the soicl structures that will allow the
greatest number of people to interact in a meaingful fashion with
each other through the repositories they create and maintain. Access to
the time to read and comment is for me the hallmark of openness.
-- Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:58:08 +0000 From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
Re: Free Access vs. Open Access On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:
> If online material is 'open' in the sense of 'free' that is of course a > great step forward, but if it's only available in pdf... > that is decidedly sub-optimal... > Not being optimal... shouldn't be an excuse for not making freely available > ...by (self)archiving ...but > ...we shouldn't lose sight of the ultimate... goal, 'open' access > (as defined in the Berlin Declaration, the Bethesda principles, > by Wellcome, PLoS, BioMed Central, and others) as opposed to merely > 'free' access. > It doesn't help to be sub-ambitious
I can only repeat that the open/free distinction is a red herring, no matter how often it is invoked formally and informally.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html
These matters have not been thought through rigorously; and things decided in haste have been invoked ever more solemnly without having been examined for their usefulness or even their coherence.
Please, let's not lose sight of the problem, which is still there, as pressing as ever, but now being kept at a distance by yet *another* groundless, confusion-generating, and -- most important -- *inaction-encouraging* reservation.
The problem -- it can never be repeated often enough, apparently -- was and is this: There are 24,000 journals publishing 2.5 million articles per year, most of them not accessible to most of their potential users worldwide because of access-tolls. This was also the problem in the paper era, but in that medium there was no solution because of the true costs and limited power of paper. (One could not diffuse paper over the airways, let alone data-mine it!)
Now we are in the online era, which offers many new possibilities, including online data-mining. But the *relevant* possibility -- relative to what we do have, and what we still lack, *exactly* as we lacked it in the paper era -- is the possibility of toll-free access to the full-text online. That is what was missing then, and that very same access is missing now.
So what do we do? We start to talk about this *absent* access as *not enough*, "sub-optimal," not the "ultimate goal"!
This is rather like declaring (while still sitting in the total darkness):
"Let there be light -- but let it not be just be the good old sunlight we've been deprived of for centuries, but voice-activated, computer-controlled, fluorescent/incandescent light, 100K Lux!"
So if someone proposes: "Why don't you just open the curtains and let in the sunlight?" the reply is "It doesn't help to be sub-ambitious"!
Considering the actual circumstances -- the curtains being still closed, and most of us still sitting in the dark -- it does seem rather impractical to be referring to the call to open the curtains as sub-optimal and sub-ambitious while that simple act is still not being performed, even though it could be, immediately, because people still don't understand that it can be, nor what advantages it will bring. Instead, we get ahead of ourselves, and fixate on the advantages it will *not* bring!
Yet even those alleged shortfalls are spurious! (See the prior postings on this thread.) Free online access to the full text (even if only PDF!) still means being able to do *everything* one could do with paper (if one could afford the access-tolls!), including reading the printed-off version! But there is also on-screen browsing, reading and navigation, downloading, storing, forwarding, *and* the capacity to convert automatically to html or ascii for text-mining. Free-access online texts are also harvestable and harvested, invertible and indexable, hence boolean-searchable and otherwise navigable, singly and collectively. Not to mention collectible into global virtual archives like oaister, the google of the refereed research literature.
Data-mining? First, let us not forget that the text of a journal article usually does not contain the empirical data on which it is based (in part because it would have been too expensive to publish all those data on paper in the paper era!), only the summary tables and analyses. So the empirical data were and still are a separate database -- one that should likewise be made freely accessible, alongside the refereed article literature, certainly, but that is a separate matter, not to be conflated with the open-access movement's first, second and third goal, which is to free access to the refereed article literature! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm
What quantitative data do appear in the text of an article are just text, like the rest of the article. Even in XML format, the problems of how to make generic data interoperable remain to be worked out, so let us not delay opening the curtains on that account either!
> 'free' will come in the wake of the open access movement, but > I doubt if the reverse is true.
It's not the "wake" that's the problem, but the *wait* (and, yes, it is indeed beginning to feel ever more funereal!).
Since "free access" is one of the necessary conditions for fulfilling the definition of "open access", it is tautological that "free" will follow (!) "open": It "follows" it logically, as surely as "p" follows "not-not-p"! But the crucial question is *when* will we have "open"? For we can already have "free" now, if we just open the curtains!
So in real-time, we can already have "free" now (by each of us immediately self-archiving, one by one, of all 2.5 million of our annual research articles), whereas to have "open" others first have to create or convert 23,500 more open-access journals, one by one.
I'd rather not wait for that, to get access to the sunlight.
The reverse is true? Getting free access now will reduce the probability of later getting any online text-mining powers we may be missing? I would like to see the logic of that sketched out explicitly, for I don't see it at all! Surely a free, online, full-text corpus will inspire all manner of further online optimizations sooner than sitting and waiting for them in the dark!
I know Jan is not actually recommending that we wait in the dark! But the fact is that we *are* waiting in the dark, and what we really need is elucidation of the feasibility and benefits of the opening of the curtains that is within our immediate reach. It does not help to encourage our Zeno's Paralysis by suggesting that letting in the light would merely be "sub-optimal"! http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#25.Mark-Up http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#15.Readability http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#16.Graphics
> ...to analyse, data-mine, and text-mine... it has to be in a > machine-readable format.
Please see the above on the distinction between data-mining and text-mining, the difference between article texts and their empirical data, and on the convertibility of PDF to html and ascii. (PDF is a red herring anyway, for authors with data tables can also self-archive the RTF and HTML, and eventually no doubt also a vanilla XML generated from their own word-processor version.)
> Open Access really is more than just an economical goal (although it goes > without saying that being able to access literature without having to be at > an institution that can afford the access tolls helps enormously).
Please translate this into the terms of the "let there be light" analogy introduced here an intuition pump for the toll-free access that was, is, and will remain the essence of the open-access movement.
"Toll-free access to the refereed literature is more than just an economic goal"
Of course! And also *other* than an economic goal. It is the toll-curtains that keep us in the dark, but the light can be let in by opening the curtains on our own work without changing the overall economics: what we need and want is light, not economic-change. (It is open-access journals that offer the light through economic change.)
"(although it goes without saying that being able to access the refereed literature toll-free helps enormously)"
Is this not another tautology (once it has been freed of the spurious open/free distinction that I have to tried to show to be functionally empty above)?
> Perhaps the difference in approach between open access publishing and > self-archiving, while both working in parallel to strengthen one another, is > the sense of priority of a qualitative (in terms of usability) versus a > quantitative one.
Not at all. Both approaches yield *exactly* the same thing, both quantitatively and qualitatively: toll-free access to the digital full-text of all refereed journal articles online. The difference is that one approach requires the founding, funding and filling of 24,000 new open-access journals with the digital texts of the yearly 2,500,000 articles, whereas the other requires only the the founding, funding and filling of institutional eprint archives with the digital texts of the yearly 2,500,000 articles. You will find that the number, cost and difficulty of the respective founding/funding/filling steps is far lower for the one than the other, both quantitatively and qualitatively: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0025.gif
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: Complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Posted discussion to: september98-forum@amsci-forum.amsci.org
Dual Open-Access Strategy: BOAI-2: Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal whenever one exists. BOAI-1: Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > > Sent: 24 October 2003 18:20 > > > > > > 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 its 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 > >
--[4]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:01:43 +0000 From: lachance@origin.chass.utoronto.ca (Francois Lachance) Subject: Re: 17.339 Open Access and its implications for the humanities
Thank you for moving share the postings in the latest round of the "open access" the discussion with subscribers to Humanist.
It appears that the question is shaping up to be about - the circulation of cultural and intellectual properties - the ability to participate in exchange and creation of such properties
I like the distinction that has been drawn between "open" and "free". As I am fond of saying "there is no free lunch at the potlatch". Hence I am wary of any attempt to characterize open access as toll-free. And I believe the discussion reproduced for the benefit of the Humanist readership(and the archive) certainly turns upon the distinction of cost and expense.
Has UNESCO done any analysis about the comparative patterns (if any) of the shifts in budgetary allocations between library acquistions, grants in aid of scholarly publication, travel subsidies for research leaves and support for IT infrastructure (hardware, software and human resources)? Expressed year over year as percentage of GNP? I ask because
The World Summit on the Information Society will be held in two phases. The first phase of WSIS will take place in Geneva hosted by the Government of Switzerland from 10 to 12 December 2003.
WSIS stakeholders are governments, international organizations, civil society entities and business sector entities.
World Summit on the Information Society http://www.itu.int/wsis/
Maybe worth reviewing once again the open access, cost recouping, benefit sharing, discussion after the declaration of principles and the plan of action are adopted. I have no idea if the notions of cost recuperatin and benefit sharing will make it into the final documents of the 2003 Geneva summit but they just might for 2005 in Tunis.
-- Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance
--[5]------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:02:12 +0000 From: "Stefan Gradmann" <stefan.gradmann@rrz.uni-hamburg.de> Subject: AW: 17.339 Open Access and its implications for the humanities
Dear colleagues,
Stevan's reaction ("I *completely* disagree!") has made me think and after all made me aware of a point I had a tendency to neglect until now: of course we should be very careful not to use the "online-is-nonoptimal" argument "in a self-paralyc manner" and "as a rationalization for inaction". And even though I had no intention to make it sound that way I do realize that the argument may be perceived that way, and maybe the risk of this happening is much higher among the "non-hermeneuticists and non-semioticians" :-)
Seriously: we probably should remind ourselves more often of the cultural differences of reasoning among the humanists and the 'hard science' colleagues. These differences not only engender different traditions of knowledge organization and of information transfer (hence the online-is-nonoptimal argument!) but also different reading reflexes and habits. Willard has mentioned this earlier: many of us humanists tend to dislike simple truths, since these are not "interesting" and we often assume that the really "interesting" things are complicated (and some of us then make the mistake of inverting this argument and to assume that complication in itself is interesting), whereas many of the 'hard science' people to some extent seek simplification or even frankly love it. This statement is of course a simplification in itself and it should be very clear that seeking simplification does not necessarily mean being simplistic - but it eplains why Stevan's answer to our wrapped up reasoning is "a black and white distinction".
I am convinced that both paradigms are needed, the 'complex' and the 'binary', the reasonings built on 'difference' and on 'identity' respectively. And we always need to remember the respective opposite more consequently: this is what Stevan's reaction has reminded me of.
There is, however, a balance of power implied here, and that's where things get nasty: simplifications are quickly embraced by politicians, too, and more than often are turned into frankly simplistic constructs in that context. And these people *hate* complications, which only cost them time and energy that is needed for useful, pragmatic action (here again I am simplifying, of course) And the consequence is that in practice only the 'binary' paradigm is present and effective in the Open Access discussion context, and that the 'complex' one has huge problems to make itself heard at all - and then most often is considered 'unuseful' and quickly discarded again.
And that's a pity!
Kind regards from wet & cloudy Hamburg -- 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
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Humanist Discussion Group > [mailto:humanist@Princeton.EDU] Im Auftrag von Humanist > Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty > <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>) > Gesendet: Sonntag, 26. Oktober 2003 06:53 > An: humanist@Princeton.EDU > Betreff: 17.339 Open Access and its implications for the humanities > > 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> > > > 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/ > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18.06.2003 > >
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 18.06.2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Oct 28 2003 - 03:26:07 EST
