[Buddha-l] Open Acess Academic Publishing

[Richard Basham]

An interesting bit (to me) on a the subject of academic publishing is
appended. Warning long URL (enclosed in double-quotes) so one can see
the source, plus a short indirect from tinyurl.com. Via Postside.org,
BTW.

What is/are appropriate -ology(ies) to characterize such an article? 


Richard Basham

**

The Other Academic Freedom Movement: 
How Scientists Broke Through the Paywall and Made Their Articles
Available to (Almost) Everyone. 
Slate  By Konstantin Kakaes  Feb. 9, 2012 

In the summer of 1991, Paul Ginsparg, a researcher at the Los Alamos
nuclear laboratory, set up an email system for about 200 string
theorists to exchange papers they had written. The World Wide Web was a
mere infant- it had been opened to the public on Aug. 6 of that year.
The string theorists weren't particularly interested in making their
research widely available (outsiders would have a tough time following
the conversation anyhow). Ginsparg's archive was a way for the theorists
to communicate with one another.

For a short while, it would remain an insular tool for exchanging the
latest theories of quantum gravity. But the novel system of
communication would become the basis for a new model of academic
publishing. Some wags would later joke that it was string theory's
greatest contribution to science.

By 1996, Ginsparg would write: "Many of us have long been aware that
certain physics journals currently play NO role whatsoever for
physicists. Their primary role seems to be to provide a revenue stream
to publishers, a revenue stream invisibly siphoned from overhead on
research contracts through library systems." The arXiv, as it came to be
known, was by then used widely in physics; some mathematicians and
computer scientists had also started using it. Ginsparg had increasingly
turned from doing physics to running the archive. (In 2002, he even
received a MacArthur "genius grant" for his work on the arXiv .)

 ...

Whatever the White House ends up saying, and even if Congress remains
gridlocked, the movement toward open publishing now seems irreversible.
In 1996, Ginsparg said that it wasn't a question of if, but when
"commercial publishers accustomed to large pre-tax profit margins" would
find themselves unable to compete with a "global raw research archive"
combined with "high-quality peer-reviewed overlays." The answer to his
question seems clear: now.

This article arises from Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona
State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate. Future Tense
explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and
culture. To read more, visit the Future Tense blog and the Future Tense
home page. You can also follow us on Twitter.

"http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/02/federal_research_public_access_act_the_research_works_act_and_the_open_access_movement_.html"

http://tinyurl.com/83bhgf6