PSudellinterview

=**"A Conversation with Peter Suber"**= =Interview of Peter Suber by John Udell,=
 * http://gort.ucsd.edu/mtdocs/archives/diglet/007439.html

Listened August 27, 2006

Notes:

John Udell's premise in this interview was to establish a "connecting of dots" about Open Access, as he has seen "different manifestations of it" in places like PLoS.

Peter emphasizes that Open Access is a kind of access to material and not a type of journal; it is a way to deliver material. For example, blogs and wikis (RSS feed) are also OA tools, though the more "academic" avenues exist in the form of journals and repositories/archives. Of the two types (OA Journals, and OA Repositories/Archives), scholarship can be shared quickly and with minimal cost. OA journals are peer reviewed, and OAR/A are pre-prints, post prints of peer reviewed articles, or non-peer reviewed materials. Suber says that the process of archiving is an "effective at getting the work out."

Suber discusses the classical/conventional peer review system as compared to the "new kinds" of ways to share information. At the end of the interview, Udell points out that as young academics (like me) learn about these tools and ways to share information, OA will be better utilized. Suber says that the success of OA will be when "OA is the default."'

Of the larger OA publishers, PLoS is one of the smallest (even though it is probably the most well known). They publish 7 journals and require authors to pay for publication. Hopefully, scholars have grant sponsorship to cover the associated costs. BioMed Central is the largest OA publisher with 120 journals. I didn't catch the name of the second largest OA publisher, but they have about 40 journals. Suber says that OA is "reputation enhancing" because "people will use it." The "early adopters" will get more notice, and "everyone will have more citations" used in other articles or in presentations. While most OA deals with physics, computational biology, and other biology based science, there will be a trend for other sciences to follow. According to Suber, there is a 50-250% citation increase since the advent of OA. it is the author's "best interest" to put data "out there." Of course, it is also in the community’s best interest, as well. Suber used the SARS research as an example. Since everyone could build off of the research of others, the turn around time was lessened considerably.

Udell pointed out that some funding sources won't allow the open sharing of data, and I think it is important to note that government secret work is probably best no published. Suber pointed out that many journals actually require the publication of data. Nature, for example, requires to the author to share data, but does not require articles to be OA. Some agencies and disciplines are working to more readily available data (medical, for example) but that "data is not completely open." The tendency of more published data is the result, in part, to NIH's request (not yet a requirement, but will probably be) for grant recipients to publish data from taxpayer funded research. Some medical journals will not accept articles without data from trials. The NIH repository, www.clinicalltrials.gov, is a large and well managed OA repository.

Most archives are OAI compliant, and this allows for multiple searches to happen at once. Suber referenced "OAIster" at the University of Michigan as "the best OA search engine for repositories." In comparison to blogs, less people know about OAI, so the message has to get out there because meta data searches are very effective. In an OAI search, it doesn't matter where the journal or material was deposited (which archive), if the repository is OAI compliant, the research will pop up in any search.

There is also a trend for "hybrid" journals; journals that provide a choice to authors. Authors can choose the closed format for no cost or the open format for author cost. This is a win/win for non-tenure folks and tenure folks. For people in tenure track positions, OA can be dangerous, as older department members know little about the OA movement. However, tenured faculty (who don't need to publish for tenure) often "write for impact, not for money." While there is no risk for tenured faculty, junior faculty have to decide if publishing OA is something they whole heartedly "believe in" or if private journals are better for their career. What few scholars know is that 70% of closed journals actually allow the author to post a copy of the article in an OA repository. So, really, if the message can get out to scholars, they can "have the best of both worlds." Suber did say that some publishers are reconsidering this perspective. Suber says that the biggest obstacle of OA is convincing authors that they can publish in closed journals AND in repositories, as "it is hard to convince authors that this is true." He believes that "as soon as they understand it...[they will be certain] there is no trade off."

Suber discussed author attitude studies and mentioned that only a minority of OA journals have author costs, and that most of the studies on author attitude have been done on author-pay journals.

Udell discussed the ethics of the blogosphere and mentioned that most bloggers, academic or not, tend to be "very careful" and "primary sources." I agree that (as far as lies my own blogging experience), it is almost taboo NOT to mention sources. It is just the way it is done. Blogging, in the academy, has not taken great root because critics view it is a "unfiltered literature."

The bottom line, according to Suber, is that "many people still don't know about OA, but those who do get very excited about it." The job will be to get the message out, and that the success of OA will not be when it is used 100%, but, rather, "we will know OA is successful when it is the default."**