MIT Should Make All Its Research Open Access In Honor Of Aaron Swartz
from the a-step-in-the-right-direction dept
We've discussed a few different efforts to continuing the work that Aaron Swartz started -- and Farhad Manjoo over at Slate has a good suggestion specifically for MIT: it should make its own academic research open for all, while also working with other top universities to do the same. Of course, MIT is in the middle of a self-investigation into its role in the Aaron Swartz prosecution, as many people familiar with the case have said that it helped prosecutors, and drove the case forward, rather than recognizing that Swartz's actions were not criminal and, at the very least, fit with MIT's overall culture (even though Swartz was not a student there).If MIT truly wants to atone for joining the federal case against Swartz, it should do something much grander: It should pledge to spend its money, prestige, and moral authority to launch a multiuniversity campaign to free every scholarly article from behind pay-wall archives like JSTOR. In other words, MIT should pledge to finish the project Swartz started.This is not a crazy idea at all -- especially for MIT. While lots of colleges and universities are now putting full courses online, MIT was really the first big university to do exactly that, announcing plans to put all of its courseware online for free way back in 2001. Is it really such a stretch to seek to do the same thing for research as well? Manjoo even has some good suggestions for how it could go about doing this logistically, pulling ideas from a few others, mainly Michael Eisen::
Making academic articles available to everyone is one of the most direct ways for MIT to fulfill its public-spirited mission to expand the world’s access to knowledge.
MIT could stop the whole business with a few bold steps. First, it should declare that, within three years’ time, its libraries will cease subscribing to all academic journals and archives that do not make their articles available online to everyone. Second, MIT should require all of its faculty, grad students, and other affiliated researchers to submit their work only to open-access journals. Third, MIT should instruct its deans and other officials to no longer look favorably upon the mere fact of publication in a “prestigious” journal when making hiring and tenure decisions. Instead, promotions should be based on the quality of a person’s work, wherever it’s been published. (This sounds obvious, but most people in academia will tell you that where you publish is just as important as what you publish.)This move seems almost too reasonable for it to actually happen. It matches with MIT's efforts in other areas. It would drive forward one of Aaron's key efforts, and it would act as a serious mea culpa for any role that the university did play in his prosecution.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, MIT should encourage other universities to participate in this effort. Specifically, it should establish a fund that pays for the true costs of publishing academic journals. Call it the Aaron Swartz Memorial Open-Access Fund. Instead of paying exorbitant subscription fees to for-profit journals, universities would instead contribute to the fund. (The amount would be a function of a school’s size and research budget.) Journals would draw from the fund according to how often their work is accessed. It’s not unlike the compulsory license system that pays musicians when their work is covered or played on the radio, except instead of allowing for more poppy renditions of Elvis tunes, this fund would let anyone in the world access any academic article at any time.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aaron swartz, education, open access, research
Companies: mit
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, MIT should require all of its faculty, grad students, and other affiliated researchers to submit their work only to open-access journals.
Third, MIT should instruct its deans and other officials to no longer look favorably upon the mere fact of publication in a “prestigious” journal when making hiring and tenure decisions."
Nonacademics do realize that universities can't make their tenured faculty do anything, correct?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then, if the journals don't want to be the best, then they have the choice of not distributing to MIT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Manjoo: First, it should declare that, within three years’ time, its libraries will cease subscribing to all academic journals and archives that do not make their articles available online to everyone.
Mike: This move seems almost too reasonable for it to actually happen.
So basically Mike has no problem with MIT no longer providing access to tons of journals that benefit everyone with access to them, which is everyone at MIT. So instead of continuing to use the stuff that is already working for them nicely, benefiting everyone at MIT, Mike thinks they should rely on "free" before "free" has proven itself. This is the problem with Mike. He thinks everyone should jump to "free" before that way of doing things has shown itself to be better than the ways that rely on exclusionary rights. Everyone is already able to create journals without relying on big, bad, evil companies like JSTOR. Nothing is stopping "free" from proving that it is better right now. To suggest they should dump what's working and switch to what's not working is not "too reasonable." It's not reasonable at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not even a new concept either. I think it was Jesus who first suggested that if you treat people with the kindness and respect that you want to be treated with, then they'll be very willing to give back to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In hindsight, their folly is easy to see, but when it is happening, it is almost impossible to recognize the slight decrease in the value equation year after year.
But hey, hold tight to those hardened perspectives, I'm sure they'll serve you well. It couldn't possibly be that there are others out there that might have something to teach you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sneeje and the people that marked this insightful obviously have no idea how academic libraries function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misguided
Universities do not decide where their faculty submit, and it would be an infringement on professors' academic freedom. They could require deposit in their institutional repository though.
The committees that make tenure decision may not be able to judge whether a certain project merits tenure, particularly from narrow specialists. However, it has been reviewed and published by a top journal, that's a good sign. I'd like to see some big changes to the tenure process, but it's a tough nut to crack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: misguided
That's just sad. I would think that those specialties should be on the cutting edge of these types of movements. Their scholars should have fully studied and thought through the benefits of OA, and should be in the forefront of making the argument in favor of these efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End of an Unwritten Epic Poem...
...
...
...
...
And such was the warning of Farhad Manjoo,
"They did it to Swartz, and they'll do it to you."
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PLOS Biology US$2900
PLOS Medicine US$2900
PLOS Computational Biology US$2250
PLOS Genetics US$2250
PLOS Pathogens US$2250
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases US$2250
PLOS ONE US$1350
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That already happened nearly four years ago:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/open-access-0320.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://libraries.mit.edu/sites/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-ac cess-policy/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]