“On February 14, 2002, a small text of fewer than a thousand words quietly appeared on the Web: titled the “Budapest Open Access Initiative” (BOAI), it gave a public face to discussions between sixteen participants that had taken place on December 1 and 2, 2001 in Budapest, at the invitation of the Open Society Foundations (then known as the Open Society Institute)….Wedding the old – the scientific ethos – with the new – computers and the Internet – elicited a powerful, historically grounded synthesis that gave gravitas to the BOAI. In effect, the Budapest Initiative stated, Open Access was not the hastily cobbled up conceit of a small, marginal band of scholars and scientists dissatisfied with their communication system; instead, it asserted anew the central position of communication as the foundation of the scientific enterprise. Communication, as William D. Harvey famously posited, is the “essence of science,” and thanks to the Internet, scientific communication could be further conceived as the distributed system of human intelligence….”
“The 15th anniversary of the BOAI offers an opportunity to take stock of our collective progress. To do this, feedback was solicited through an open survey, and we received responses from 69 countries around the world. Additionally, we have convened a small working group to synthesize the community feedback and use it to reflect on the values, impact, and continued relevance of the BOAI. The Working Group will review and digest the responses received and provide updated recommendations to reflect the current status of the movement. Later this week, we’re looking forward to the release of a comprehensive reflection on where the open access movement has been and where it may be headed, written by Jean-Claude Guédon, one of the original drafters of the BOAI, and a noted thought leader in the open access community. In the meantime, watch the BOAI 15 twitter feed (@TheBOAI) and #TheBOAI starting today for a series of tweets showcasing some of the reactions collected from the wider Open community on the impact of the BOAI and on open access in general. As recommendations are formulated, these will be supplemented with more action-oriented items from members of the BOAI 15 Working Group….”
“This headline from the Chronicle of Higher Education [“Someday, Altmetrics Will No Longer Need ‘Alt’.”] is obviously true.
It reminds me of a bit of history that I don’t think I’ve recorded before. In the 2001 deliberations that led to the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative, we initially used the term alternative journals. At one point I suggested that we replace the term with open-access journals. The “alt” made these journals sound fringe, incendiary, immature and untested, or more focused on protest than substance. The group agreed, and we used open-access journals in the public statement.
Footnote: The BOAI is notable in part for giving equal emphasis to green and gold OA. We used the term open-access journals for the gold side. On the green side, we used the term archive, while many of us soon after switched over to repository. At least in my own case, this was a result of protests from traditional archivists who looked at these online databases and said, “Those are not archives!” True enough, in the traditional sense of the term. Although language constantly evolves to apply old terms to new things, in this case I found it easier to change archive to repository in my own writing than to fight the archivists. I’ve never heard a traditional librarian who worked with pre-OA repositories complain about the way the OA movement uses the term repository.”
From the blog post: “The role of the repository manager is constantly evolving. The repository manager of today needs to be aware and interpret not only their affiliated institution’s open access policies, but also the national and international ones that emerge from public funding agencies. The proliferation of these policies introduces technical requirements for repositories, the use of current research information systems (CRIS) and the installation of various plug-ins for example, and often repository managers serve as intermediary between the IT department of their institution and their supervisors or library directors and have to communicate messages and requests. A couple of months ago on the UKCoRR members list we had a discussion around the specific technological terms that repository managers hear regularly.”
“As Open Access becomes more widespread, quantifying the range of OA options has become complex. In this PLOScast, Elizabeth Seiver speaks with Greg Tananbaum, the owner of ScholarNext, about the spectrum of Open Access, the tool available to help academics gauge the openness of an article, OA policies and emerging developments in scholarly communication. Together they discuss how machine readability is playing a role in OA publishing, issues surrounding OA funding, and how Open Access journals can work together. Greg focuses on the intersection of technology, content and academia. He’s been working with SPARC since 2007 on issues relating to Open Access and open data. If you are interested in learning more, please check out the following links …”
Le mouvement promouvant l’accès ouvert (open access en anglais) à la recherche a été lancé avec une belle idée, celle de mettre les résultats de la recherche à la disposition de tous dans des archives ouvertes et des revues ouvertes. Ce mouvement conquiert maintenant le monde pour le plus grand bénéfice des auteurs, des chercheurs, des étudiants, des bibliothèques, des éditeurs, des universités et des centres de recherche. Et, tout aussi important peut-être, pour le bénéfice du grand public, quelle que soit sa formation et quel que soit son parcours professionnel.
Pour en savoir plus, merci de consulter la présentation de l’accès ouvert par Peter Suber. Certains passages ci-dessous sont d’ailleurs inspirés de cette présentation, un des multiples avantages de l’accès ouvert, à savoir pouvoir s’inspirer du travail d’autrui pour nos propres articles dans la mesure où le nom de la source originale et celui de son auteur sont impérativement cités et dans la mesure où ce travail original dispose d’une licence Creative Commons.
I recently moderated an event for the National Governors Association at the Harvard Kennedy School. In one session, performance management expert Bob Behn told a group of governors’ chiefs of staff that one of the most basic but often overlooked aspects of an efficient organization is a shared definition of key terms. Simple words can take on significantly different meanings to different people, and if a standard definition for these words is not set, collaboration is stifled by miscommunication. The idea is that any one piece of information can be constructed in various ways — its operational value depends on a shared understanding. The same holds true for data, which is why standards are crucial to any open data policy. Data standards create a common structure that facilitates information sharing, inter-organizational cooperation and the ability to build on past successes — all important ingredients to driving data-smart innovation.