[Taxacom] FW: DEVELOPING WORLD TO RECEIVE ACCESS [etc]

[Donat Agosti]

There is not only one way

Rod's complaint about the bad pdfs out there is well taken: They ought be
considered one stepping stone on our way to Web2.0. At least, single
libraries are now virtually cloned, Harvard's ant room complete coverage of
ant systematics in the early 2000 is now open to anybody in the world, and
it actually is intensively being used from around the world.
If we do have the tools to transfer these documents into xml documents
readable by machines, that is what Rod might want, we are getting to the
point where we ought to be: extracting and mining all our printed record.
GoldenGate and taxonx might be part of this approach, the other of course is
the leverage support from colleagues around the world to help to transfer
pdfs into xml docs. Since time in libraries is drastically cut, there seems
to be plenty of time to chip into such an endeavour.

One might argue, that an xml doc is not enough: That's certainly true. This
data need be transferred into a form, possible kind of character matrices
for descriptive materials, linked to onotlogies in various languages, so
people in their own languages could get what they want. Brian Heidorn is for
example studying Natural Language Processing to extract descriptive
information; Andy Dean and Neil Sarkar work on such an ontology for
Hymenoptera, and there are others. This of course is not yet where we want
to be, that is proper, clean and well documented data matrices needed to run
phylogenies, identification tools. Which of course is something we as users
want. Whether it is worthwhile to make the detour via the old literature
might be questioned. But I would argue, that anybody doing revisionary work
needs to get hold of all the respective literature. Converting them into pdf
is only a small step, especially if you consider that some of it has been
done by others already. 

The open access debate is not about replacing publications per se, but
access to the content of publications. In physics, arXiv.org showed with
over 390,000 articles that having per-prints is enough to effectively
communicate. If we can convince our funders to support an alternative
business model, such as prepaid publications, that's one way to go. This is
what seems to happen within the Berlin Declarations community, where
institutions like Universities or funding agencies like the UK Wellcome
Trust set aside funds (1% of the overall funding in the latter case) to
allow for open access publications.

The goal of public research funding is to build a base for innovation and
problem solving among others. The Internet and open access are a chance to
assure the widest possible dissemination of this insight, which is only
fair, since public funding is out of our pockets. As Neal put it, the tide
has changed and instruments need be adjusted.

Library exchanges helped to maintain libraries. At the same time, it is
accepted that we don't stock e-journals anymore, as we did with old printed
journals. We buy access, and at the moment, we don't pay, there is no copy
of it in our libraries. We just accept that. So, open access would help
twice: You do not need to ship journals around (unless there are enough
like-minded preferring a market for print copies), plus they are out there
without restrictions.


I am aware of the problem of societal journals, though again, most of the
work is done for free, up to the peer review; if printing gets too
expensive, why not explore the avenue of eprints? It also might mean to
change ICZN accordingly. I'm certainly not in favor of using income from
journals to support other activities of societies.

John's point about the poor who can not pay might be answered by looking at
Zootaxa. I do not agree with their policy to bar open access unless it is
being paid for, but they nevertheless give anybody the chance to publish
even large monographs. Obviously, there is a viable business model. There
are also journals who would like to have more systematics paper, like the
Journal of Insect Science.

Christine's point might be extended: Digitization and web2.0 is not the
science, but a tool, among others to communicate. What is decisive are
scientists, their experience, their skills to teach and ask interesting and
relevant questions, and increasingly ways to bridge gaps by various
disciplines. Anything which does not fit there needs will be pruned at some
point. I would just argue that most likely the same arguments apply to
support a digital infrastructure and repository as it was to build up
library after Gutenberg introduced the press. 


Social construct
I do not believe the Internet has too much to do with decreasing social
interactions. Web2.0 in the contrary allows for more time to focus on your
real work, including exchange with your colleagues. Congress tourism seems
not to have decreased, it rather increased with my experience. This has a
lot to do with trust: Can I trust the data I get anonymously - or do I want
to share my data with somebody I do not know? Finally, there are tools like
skype allowing to talk to anybody in the world, even having face to face
meetings.


Donat

Dr. Donat Agosti
Science Consultant
Research Associate, American Museum of Natural History and Naturmuseum der
Burgergemeinde Bern
Email: agosti at amnh.org
Web: http://antbase.org
Blog: http://biodivcontext.blogspot.com/
Skype: agostileu
CV
Current Location
Dalmaziquai 45
3005 Bern
Switzerland
+41-31-351 7152