Measuring FOS progress, Part 2
Free Online Scholarship (FOS) Newsletter
September 15, 2002
by Peter SuberHere's a less objective approach. Imagine a coordinate plane. The x axis represents general acceptance or rejection. The y axis represents friendliness or unfriendliness to FOS. To plot something in quadrant I (upper right) is to say that it is both accepted and friendly to FOS. The further it is to the right, the more it is accepted or entrenched, and the higher up it is, the more favorable it is to FOS.
We can use the plane to plot the significance of a development to FOS. For convenience, let's put an upper limit of 10 and lower limit of -10 on the values of x and y. But at the same time let's admit that the exact coordinates for a given development will be somewhat arbitrary and subjective. For example, is self-archiving by researchers more like <3, 10> (more accepted than rejected but very friendly) or more like <-3, 10> (more rejected than accepted but very friendly)? Is open access after a six month delay more like <3, 5> (somewhat accepted, moderately friendly) or more like <3, -2> (somewhat accepted, somewhat unfriendly)?
If you really draw the plane, plot the points, and replot them periodically, then progress will be shown by the movement of points into the upper right and lower left quadrants. Above the x axis, the further to the right the better, and below it, the further to the left the better. If there's a cloud of points in either the upper right or lower left quadrants, that's good. If there's a cloud of points in either of the other two quadrants, that's bad, even if the exact positions within the quadrants are arbitrary and subjective. For many purposes it will enough to classify items by quadrant without assigning specific coordinates.
We can reduce some of the subjectivity by comparing our values with others or by voting for values as a group. But in my examples below, I didn't have time for either precaution. Hence, I've given quadrants without coordinates. I didn't want my own subjective evaluations to trigger distracting or divisive quarrels. Moreover, I'm less committed to any particular set of numbers than to the way this plot, when done with more care or communal input, can give us a useful overview of where we stand. If others agree, then another way to reduce subjectivity is for interested users to tighten my loose definitions of the two axes.
I can imagine a third dimension or z axis measuring effectiveness or impact, but I won't add that layer of complexity to this sketch.
* Here's how I'd plot a dozen or so initiatives and developments in quadrant I (upper right): accepted and friendly to FOS.
arXivBioMed CentralBudapest Open Access InitiativeCreative CommonsDeep linkingDelayed free access (embargo period)Digital librariesEprints softwareOpen Archives InitiativePublic Library of ScienceSelf-archiving by researchersSPARCTiered journal pricing for developing countriesTradition of scholars not demanding payment for research articles
* Here are some items I'd place in quadrant II (upper left): generally rejected but friendly to FOS.
Government willingness to require open-access publication of research results as a condition for grantsJournal willingness to let authors retain copyrightEndowments for open-access journalsFirst-sale doctrine for digital contentUniversity willingness to pay for outgoing articles rather than incoming articles
* Here are some items I'd place in quadrant III (lower left): generally rejected, unfriendly to FOS.
Compulsory web filters in schools and librariesOvert censorship of scholarly literature
* Finally, here are some items I'd place in quadrant IV (lower right): accepted or common, but unfriendly to FOS.
Compulsory web filters in certain nationsCopyright extension (e.g. Bono Act)Cross-border censorshipDigital divide (maldistribution of hardware, software, connectivity)DMCA anti-circumvention clauseDRMHigh prices for journalsLicensing terms that waive fair-use rightsPublisher consolidation, monopoly
* Exercise: Where would you put the following: "declarations of independence" (in which journal editors leave a recalcitrant publisher in order to relaunch a similar but open-access journal with another publisher), digital preservation initiatives, DOI's, ebooks, free and open source software, Google, GPL, grid computing, the Ingelfinger rule, reference linking, the semantic web, UCITA, and WIPO?
----------
Read this issue online
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3997161/suber_fos9-15-02.htmlThe Free Online Scholarship Newsletter is supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute.
==========
This is the Free Online Scholarship Newsletter (ISSN 1535-7848).
Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, you may subscribe by signing up at the FOS home page.
http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan
Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter editorial position
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm
Newsletter, archived back issues
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm
Forum, archived postings
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html
Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm
Timeline of the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
Open Access Overview
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
Open Access News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
peter.suber@earlham.edu
SOAN is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/
Return to the Newsletter archive