Open Access: Science Publishing as Science Publishing Should Be

Full and unimpeded access (Open Access) to science literature is needed. It is not provided by the traditional subscription-based publishing model. Instead of criticizing Open Access and attacking its proponents, traditional publishers should make imaginative and innovative efforts to build their businesses around the needs of their customers rather than around their desire to continue a model that may be lucrative, but that is no longer satisfactory to science or society

Open Access is a Choice

Die formale Veröffentlichung von Forschungsergebnissen mit einem Peer-Review-Verfahren wird in der Wissenschaft als notwendig erachtet. Zugleich wird der freie Zugang zu diesen Ergebnissen zunehmend als notwendig erachtet. Manchmal werden diese Bedürfnisse als unvereinbar empfunden, sie sind es aber nicht. Wir müssen von der konventionellen Rolle, die Urheber- recht und Abonnements spielen, wegkommen, um die Möglichkeiten des Publizierens als Dienstleistung voll auszuschöpfen und zugleich freien Zugang zu erhalten.Formal peer-reviewed publication of research results is seen as a necessity in science. But also, open access to these results is increasingly seen as a necessity. The two are sometimes seen as incompatible, but they are not. But we have to get away from the conventional roles of copyright and subscriptions in the system in order to capitalise on the possibilities of publishing as a service, with open access as a result.Not Reviewe

Open Access is just the beginning

Intervention à la 33e conférence générale annuelle de la Ligue des bibliothèques européennes de recherche (Liber)

Open Access Publishing And Scholarly Societies: A Guide

assess the options available to them for the future of their journal publishing programmes. Though the option of keeping the status quo of subscription-based journals is discussed, the focus is on conversion of existing journals to open access, either in one go, or via an intermediate managed transition phase. This guide doesn’t address issues to do with the conversion to electronic publishing, and neither those to do with basic business planning. The latter have been dealt with in an earlier publication by the Open Society Institute: Guide to Business Planning for Converting a Subscription-based Journal to Open Access, Edition 3, February 20041. It is assumed that journals under consideration are currently operating with a satisfactory inflow of article submissions and also that they are either already available in electronic form, or that the choice is already taken to publish them electronically. Whilst electronic publishing is a sine qua non for open access, it is fast becoming a condition of being able to survive in journal publishing regardless of whether the journal is open access or operating on a subscription model. This guide also doesn’t address issues to do with library budget concerns other than in the context of the diminishing sustainability of the traditional subscription model of scholarly journal publishing

Necessity is the Mother of Innovation

In the debate about the National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposals, we have seen and heard much concern expressed for the health of the publishing industry and the health of societies with a publishing program. Most arguments seem to center on these issues. And they are very important, of course, especially to the publishing organizations concerned, be they scholarly societies or commercial publishers. They fear for the demise of their subscription-based model and the seemingly secure income streams it generates. Societies argue that they need the income from publishing to sustain the other important activities that they are engaged in, such as the awarding of scholarships, the organizing of conferences, public outreach, and educational programs. Commercial publishers cannot argue that losing revenue means having to stop charitable activities, but they gratefully regard societies as a convenient bulwark behind which they can safely shelter from the effects of any criticism. Societies, after all, are part of the scientific community and will, as such, be treated with much more care than commercial publishers by those who want to change the way of scientific publishing, or so the theory goes. And of course, there is some justification for that. But curiously, there is something missing from the debate. We heard little about the health and effectiveness of science. Yet that has to be the prime concern. Publishers and scholarly societies derive their raison d'être from serving science. It is the obligation of all participants in this debate to put science first. That does not seem to happen, however. If the concerns of science were put first, and the business of providing a service to the world of research were to follow rather than take pole position, we could take the discussion further, and debate as to how science is best served. There will be different ideas about that, of course. The vantage point of a scholarly society, including its perspective on business, is bound to be different from that of a commercial publisher. But a rich and frank exchange of those ideas can only benefit the outcome. Alas, an opportunity seems to have been missed by many in the furor surrounding the NIH proposals

Necessity is the Mother of Innovation

In the debate about the National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposals, we have seen and heard much concern expressed for the health of the publishing industry and the health of societies with a publishing program. Most arguments seem to center on these issues. And they are very important, of course, especially to the publishing organizations concerned, be they scholarly societies or commercial publishers. They fear for the demise of their subscription-based model and the seemingly secure income streams it generates. Societies argue that they need the income from publishing to sustain the other important activities that they are engaged in, such as the awarding of scholarships, the organizing of conferences, public outreach, and educational programs. Commercial publishers cannot argue that losing revenue means having to stop charitable activities, but they gratefully regard societies as a convenient bulwark behind which they can safely shelter from the effects of any criticism. Societies, after all, are part of the scientific community and will, as such, be treated with much more care than commercial publishers by those who want to change the way of scientific publishing, or so the theory goes. And of course, there is some justification for that. But curiously, there is something missing from the debate. We heard little about the health and effectiveness of science. Yet that has to be the prime concern. Publishers and scholarly societies derive their raison d'être from serving science. It is the obligation of all participants in this debate to put science first. That does not seem to happen, however. If the concerns of science were put first, and the business of providing a service to the world of research were to follow rather than take pole position, we could take the discussion further, and debate as to how science is best served. There will be different ideas about that, of course. The vantage point of a scholarly society, including its perspective on business, is bound to be different from that of a commercial publisher. But a rich and frank exchange of those ideas can only benefit the outcome. Alas, an opportunity seems to have been missed by many in the furor surrounding the NIH proposals

A study on the impact of work motivation and job search behavior on reemployment among the unemployed aged 45 and older

Knowing that the number of older long-term unemployed increases, research is needed to get insight into the relationships between work motivation, job search behavior and re-employment success among the older unemployed. Previous studies indicated that work motivation and job search behavior can contribute to reemployment

Wanting ≠ getting

Poster STREAM study t.b.v. Hanze Research Day 201