From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 07:19:00 -0500 Berlin Stonewalling -- or Flip-Flop 1. Richard Poynder's take on Berlin 12 is basically valid (even though perhaps a touch too conspiratorially minded). 2. The much-too-long series of Berlin X meetings, huffing on year after year, have long been much-ado-about-next-to-nothing. 3. The solemn "Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities," with its unending list of signatories, was never anything more than a parroting of the 2003 "Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing[sic]," which was, in turn, a verbose reiteration of half of the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative -- skewed to only BOAI-2 ("gold" open access publishing), virtually ignoring BOAI-1 ("green" open access self-archiving). 4. For what it's worth, I attended Berlin 1 in Berlin in 2003 (out of curiosity, and in the hope it would lead to something) and we hosted Berlin 3 in Southampton in 2005 (at which it was officially recommended to require BOAI-1, green OA self-archiving, and to encourage BOAI-2, gold OA publishing. 5. After that the Berlin series went on and on (I never attended again), but the progress on implementing the Southampton/Berlin-3 recommendations was transpiring elsewhere (with the ROARMAP adopted mandates in the UK, Australia, EU, and US, starting from 2003 to today). 6. As far as I can tell, the Berlin X series just continues fussing about gold OA, and although I am less suspicious than Richard, I too suspect that the "secrecy" was because the institutional reps attending Berlin 12 are trying to forge a common front for working out a gold-OA "flip" deal with publishers. And my prediction, for reasons I've repeated, unheeded, many, many times, is that any flip will be a flop. On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 9:33 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:19:26 +0000 > > It seems to me that Richard Poynder is making three logical mistakes: > > 1. The decision to hold a closed "Berlin" meeting may be questioned, > but does it imply that this will be the norm for such meetings in the > future? > > 2. Open access and strategies to reach open access work on different > planes. While, personally, I always favour openness and transparency > in governance or decision-making processes, I can readily accept the > fact that some open access advocates feel the need for occasional, > focused, by-invitation only, meetings. Incidentally, Elsevier, Wiley, > etc. do not open their strategy sessions to everybody, so far as I > know. Incidentally again, I was not invited to Berlin-12, and I do not > resent the fact; > > 3. The strategy of flipping journals is one way to achieve open > access, as is self-archiving in suitable depositories. Open access is > proceeding along a number of parallel and complementary tactics and > strategies, as can be expected of a "movement" that is a movement only > in the loosest of all meanings and without any institutionalized > governance system. So, let us forget about statements such as "the > primary means of achieving open access". Attempts in the past to > privilege Green over Gold, or Gold over Green, equally based on the > faulty assumption of a homogeneous "movement" have crippled progress > toward OA way too much. > > And may 2016 bring about significant OA victories in the world! Happy > festivals to all. > > Jean-Claude Guédon > ________________________________ > > From: Richard Poynder > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:42:07 +0000 > > The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and > 9th. The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of > subscription journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white > paper by the Max Planck Digital Library”. > > In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass > “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models. > > Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because > holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the > principles of openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003 > Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and > Humanities. > > Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness > and transparency in the decision making and processes involved in > making open access a reality, as well as of research outputs? > > Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary > means of achieving open access can we not expect to see > non-transparent and secret processes become the norm, with the costs > and details of the transition taking place outside the purview of the > wider OA movement? If that is right, would it matter? > > Some thoughts here: > http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html > > Richard Poynder