This is just wrong. The proposition that is being put forth
here
is between fully open access material and fully closed
access
material, a contrast that does not exist on the Internet,
where
materials are found through Web-exposed indexes, published
keywords, linking arrangements, abstracts and summaries,
hot-linked citations, and various (and evolving) algorithmic
methods. There is an entire industry that has grown up
around
thise called "search-engine and site
optimization"; and like any
industry, it has its share of cheaters and scam artists.
Google
"SEO" and take a look.
This industry also has serious and ethical players (who are
expensive), who redesign content for maximum Web
"findability"
and can greatly and legitimately increase the prominence of
research materials. This costs money: it requires
well-designed
Web presences, superior marketing personnel, and extensive
attention to Web analytics. It also requires sophisticated
software platforms to manage all of this, something that is
apparently entirely lacking in the OA universe, where
"cheap" is
a synonym for "good." This is why commercial and
well-run
not-for-profit research publishers have always provided,
continue
to provide, and will provide in the future the best vehicle
for
researchers who publish. There are very good reasons to
want to
publish in Nature and Science, just as there are very good
reasons to want to send your kid to Harvard or Yale.
The basic problem here is the insistence that Web
findability and
access are somehow one and the same. It just ain't true.
You
can put up anything you want on a Web server and you may
even get
lucky and have Google and some other search engines index
it.
And this is where advocates of OA start and end the
discussion.
The problem is that findability is a function of many, many
things, including how content is "pitched" to
search engines and
the network of Web relationships surrounding content. You
can
build it, but they may not come.
But even this doesn't speak to the biggest issue of all,
which is
not how you find or access something, but what puts those
keywords into a researcher's head in the first place. OA is
useless here; it can only fulfill demand that has been
generated
elsewhere. The OA advocates are doing an enormous
disservice to
authors by telling them that they can all be stars in a
Hollywood
movie. Where oh where are the tort lawyers when you need
them?
Of course, the vanity of authors is endless and many listen
and
believe. Successful and prominent OA publishers understand
the
importance of generating demand. Wouldn't every commercial
publisher like to have a marketing budget the size of
PLoS's?
Joe Esposito
On 4/7/07, Alma Swan <a.p.swan talk21.com> wrote:
> Joe Esposito wrote:
>
>> There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the
Internet
>> works in this post. OA is contrasted with hardcopy
and Web
>> 1.0 applications. Everything that is listed here
for OA can be
>> done (and done better) with proprietary services.
>
> There is no misunderstanding, fundamental or otherwise.
OA is
> contrasted with CA (closed access) on the Web (I must
confess I
> hadn't given much thought to print: a rather quaint
concept in
> the context of obtaining scientific information).
Authors
> cannot cite articles they don't know about, they
certainly
> cannot cite early any articles they don't know about,
semantic
> technologies cannot get at closed access articles to
work on
> them, proprietory services do not construct one
research space,
> and researchers whose work requires them to reach out
into
> other fields cannot find articles that are not in their
library
> (and the concept of 'new fields' frequently means that
their
> library does not provide the materials they need).
Indeed, this
> whole area of servicing the demands of collaborative
and pooled
> research is a major issue that research libraries are
now
> having to start facing up to (as will be clear from the
report
> to be published next week by RIN).
>
> Alma Swan
> Key Perspectives Ltd
> Truro, UK
|
