From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:44:35 +0000 This is a very interesting announcement, not least because it suggests the existence of an alarming tendency on Stevan's part: a habit of "talking up" and "seeking to win over sceptics and doubters (to)" proposals and initiatives before he has fully thought them through or considered their implications. It suggests that perhaps the next time he feels compelled to "(flood) mailing lists with messages" either in favor of or in opposition to a new initiative or proposal, he should perhaps wait a week or so and make sure he really agrees with it. This might save a lot of listserv bandwidth. Rick Anderson Acting Dean, J. Willard Marriott Library University of Utah [log in to unmask] On 7/26/12 3:42 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >From: [log in to unmask] >Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:06:16 -0400 > >** Cross-Posted ** > >Thursday, July 26, 2012 > >When on July 16th Research Councils UK (RCUK) published its updated >Policy on Access to Research Outputs the Open Access (OA) movement >greeted the news with enthusiasm. This was hardly surprising: unlike >the recommendations in the controversial Finch Report (published a >month earlier), RCUK stressed that it continues to view both gold OA >publishing and green OA self-archiving as equal partners in any OA >policy. > >Gold and green are the two strategies outlined eight years ago when >the OA movement was born, and are viewed as being essential components >of any successful transition to OA. > >By contrast, Finch concluded that the main vehicle should now be gold >OA, either via pure open access journals or via hybrid journals, and >that this should be funded by article processing charges (APCs). > >At the same time, Finch argued, it was time to downgrade green OA, and >reduce the role of institutional repositories to merely, "providing >access to research data and to grey literature" and assisting in >digital preservation. > >Set alongside the Finch proposals, OA advocates quickly concluded that >RCUK¹s policy was a godsend. > >One of the first to applaud the new policy was long-standing OA >advocate, and self-styled archivangelist, Stevan Harnad. The minute >the report was published a relieved Harnad began flooding mailing >lists with messages congratulating RCUK on coming up with a policy >that not only defied Finch, but was stronger than its current OA >policy. > >But as Harnad set about talking up the policy, and seeking to win over >sceptics and doubters, he himself began to have doubts. And eventually >he was driven to the conclusion that he had no option but to withdraw >his support for the RCUK policy ‹ which he now characterises as >³autistic², and a ³foolish, wasteful and counterproductive step >backwards². > >How has what at first sight seemed so desirable rapidly become >something terrible? Curious to find out, I contacted Harnad. I publish >the email interview that emerged from our conversation. > >http://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26 >.html#more