From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 12:34:41 +0000

I welcome Daniel Allington's contribution to discussions about open
access. Having read all through his article, I find it difficult to
understand Kent Anderson's response to the article. In the points
Daniel Allington makes there is much to support the development of
open access as a good way forward for research communication. The
thrust of Daniel's argument is partly about the current situation in
the UK, which is of the UK Government's making, and partly about the
role of open access in solving perceived problems in the research
communication infrastructure.

On the current UK situation it is the UK Government and not open
access supporters who have attempted to impose one particular model
upon a complex academic environment. The rest of the world - and until
recently the UK - has been careful to follow various routes to open
access and has avoided the rushed implementation of one particular
open access model (see my article "How did the UK Government manage to
spoil something as good as open access?"
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/10/17/uk-government-manage-to-spoil-open-access/).
Daniel Allington recognises the UK Government's wish to protect the
publishing industry but fails to recognise the impact of that
motivation upon the rest of the research communication infrastructure.

On the many problems in the current research communication
infrastructure, it is quite true that open access has been - and still
is by many commentators across the world - seen as a more effective
model than the toll-access model which has dominated research
communication for many years. It is not that open access is presented
as a solution to problems but as an alternative way forward arguably
more cost-effective than the present infrastructure. Again open access
supporters recognise the complexity of the research communication
process. The open access principle is sufficiently flexible to be
applied in different ways, using different forms of the model for
different forms of publication, in different cultural environments and
within different research funding structures.

This is the point at which ordinarily I might embark upon a detailed
critique of Daniel Allington's paper, but if I were to do so our
respected Moderator would remind me of the understandable Liblicense
restriction upon length of submissions to the list. Daniel Allington's
points deserve to be taken seriously, and the force of the emotion
which lies behind them is fully understandable. Yet his article cannot
be used to condemn the entire development of open access as a viable
alternative to the flawed research communication system we have had to
live with for many years. It is important for researchers to feel that
they are involved in the solutions to the problems Daniel Allington
identifies.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
________________________________________

From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:04:49 -0500

Kent Anderson in the Scholarly Kitchen
(http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/05/not-the-answer-an-academic-carefully-assesses-the-arguments-for-open-access/)
points to an interesting essay by UK sociologist Daniel Allington, who
takes it for granted that mandated gold OA will prevail in the UK, but
has now had second thoughts about the process and offers an extensive
analysis:

http://www.danielallington.net/2013/10/open-access-why-not-answer/#sthash.643dajcu.dpbs

Jim O'Donnell
Georgetown U.