The Acceptance and Distribution of Freely Accessible Publications / By Johannes Fournier, German Research Foundation
免费获取出版物的接受度及散播性 / 乔纳斯·富尼耶（德国研究基金会）

A representative survey among DFG-supported scientists and scholars, published in 2005 by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), showed that there was broad agreement on the principle of Open Access by grantees across all academic disciplines: 74% of the materials scientists participating in the survey thought that it was in principle beneficial to specifically promote access to research results free of charge, as did 81% of those working in the humanities and social sciences, 84% of the natural scientists, and 88% of the life scientists(46). At least in theory, the international academic community also supports Open Access. Interdisciplinary support for this principle was confirmed in February 2007: a petition to the European Commission was submitted on 11 February 2007 by more than 6 000 life scientists, some 2 000 physicists and 2 000 materials scientists, as well as by some 2 100 social scientists and some 1 200 representatives of the humanities. This petition requests free access to research results by making it mandatory to place these in repositories after the expiry of an embargo period. In the meantime, it has been signed by over 24 000 scientists and scholars(47).
2005年，德国研究基金会（Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG）发表被资助科学家和学者的调查报告，表明在所有学术领域，受助者对开放获取原则的接受度都很高：74％参与调查的材料科学家、81％的人文及社会科学工作者、84％的自然科学家以及88 ％的生命科学家原则上认为，这有助于推动免费获取研究成果（注46）。至少在理论上，国际学术界也支持开放获取。2007年2月，对此原则的跨学科支持得到证实：2007年2月11日，6,000多名生命科学家、约2,000名物理学家和2,000名材料科学家，以及约2,100名社会科学家和约1,200位人文科学代表，共同向欧盟委员会提交请愿书，要求在禁锢期满后，研究成果必须置于典藏库自由获取。目前已有超过24,000名科学家与学者签名（注47）。

注46: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Publication Strategies in Transformation? Results of a study on publishing habits and information acquisition with regard to Open Access, Bonn. 2005 = [德国研究基金会. 转型中的出版策略？关于开放获取的出版习惯与信息获取研究结果，波恩2005], p.51 et seq., http://www.dfg.de/en/dfg_profile/facts_and_figures/statistical_reporting/open_access/index.html.

注47: The statistics on the petition to the EU as of 11 February 2007 with app. 18 000 signatories can be found under [2007年2月11日向欧盟请愿的统计，以及18,000位签名者可见于] http://www.ec-petition.eu.


In principle, there are various ways in which scientists and scholars could implement this evidently widespread readiness to make their research results openly accessible. Two thousand six hundred and sixteen Open Access journals ranging across all academic disciplines have been registered under http://www.doaj.org/ alone. As was to be expected, the list is headed by publications in the fields of medicine, biology and food sciences. Alongside technology and environmental sciences, the social and behavioural sciences (including psychology, pedagogy, sociology, political science and jurisprudence) are also well represented, as are linguistics, literary studies, art and cultural studies (including history, archaeology and philosophy). The latter two groups have been consolidated in the diagram.
原则上，科学家和学者可以有很多方式，使他们的研究成果广泛可得，可开放获取。仅http://www.doaj.org/就收录有2,616种包括所有学术领域的开放获取期刊，居前列的为医学、生物学和食品科学领域的期刊。除了科技和环境科学，社会科学和行为科学（包括心理学、教育学、社会学、政治学和法学）也有不少，语言学、文学研究、艺术和文化研究（包括历史、考古学和哲学）同样如此，后两组学科在图中合并表示。

All the large publishers now have schemes whereby articles published in subscription journals are made freely available to users directly after publication provided that authors cover the costs of publication(48). In certain subjects — e.g. physics with arXiv (http://arxiv.org/) and economics and social sciences with the Research Papers in Economics (http://repec.org/) — it is becoming standard practice to make preliminary versions of academic contributions available via subject-based repositories. In addition, more and more publishers are also allowing published journal articles to be placed on document servers and thus be made freely available. Therefore, it should not be difficult to publish on an Open Access basis(49).
现在所有大型出版社都有计划，在作者愿意承担出版费用的前提下，让订阅期刊上发表的论文在出版后，即刻由用户自由取得（注48）。在某些学科里，把学术论文初稿置于学科典藏库，已是标准做法──如物理学的arXiv（http://arxiv.org/）和经济学与社会科学的“经济学研究论文”（http://repec.org/）。此外，越来越多的出版社也允许已发表的期刊论文放在文件服务器，并可自由取得。因此，以开放获取的方式出版论文，应该并不困难（注49）。

注48: 详细的信息, 参见 Suber, Peter, 'Nine questions for hybrid journal programs' = [九问混合出版期刊计划] in: SPARC Open Access Newsletter 101, 2 Sept.2006.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-06.htm#hybrid.

注49: Cf. [参见] Scholze, Frank, 'Goldene und grüne Strategie des Open Access – Übersicht und Vergleich' = [开放获取的金科、玉律：概况与比较], in: Lülfing, Daniela (ed.), 95. Deutscher Bibliothekartag in Dresden 2006, Netzwerk Bibliothek, 2007, pp. 173–182.


Actual publication practice, however, contrasts sharply with the general acceptance of Open Access and the multiple publication possibilities. In 2004, of those grantees questioned by the DFG, IT specialists had made 46% of their journal articles available on an Open Access basis after they had been published, mathematicians 32%, but biologists only 17%, social scientists 9%, and academics working in the humanities a mere 3%. At the same time, only 12% of those questioned had published at least once in an Open Access journal(50). However, an upward trend can be observed: while an international survey in 2004 found that only about 11% of those questioned had published in an Open Access journal, this figure had risen to 29% by 2005(51).
然而，开放获取的广泛认同和多种出版可能性，却与实际出版情况形成强烈的对比。 2004年，德国研究基金会调查受资助者，IT专家在其发表期刊论文后，只有46％采用了开放获取模式，数学家为32％，而生物学家只有17％，社会科学家9％，人文领域的学者仅为3％。同时，只有12％的受访者至少在开放获取期刊发表一篇论文（注50）。即使如此，还是可以看出上升的趋势：2004年做的国际调查发表，只有11％的受访者曾经在开放获取期刊发表论文，到2005年，此数字已上升到29％（注51）。

注50: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 2005 op. cit., p. 44 (Open Access journals), pp. 45–47 (Open Access postpublications).
注51: Rowlands, Ian & Nicholas, Dave, ‘An International Survey of Senior Researchers’ = [资深研究者国际调查], in: New Journal Publishing Models, 22 Sept. 2005, 5. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/ciber_2005_survey_final.pdf.

In another survey of 1 296 academics worldwide, authors responded that they had not published in the context of Open Access because they knew of no or at least of no ‘appropriate’ Open Access journals in their subject area in which they could have published their work. In addition, three-quarters of those participating in the survey were unaware that they could have made their already published works available via repositories(52).
在对全球1,296位学者的另一项调查中，作者反映没有以开放获取方式出版，是因为不知道在他们的领域里，有合适的开放获取期刊，可以发表其论文。此外，四分之三的受访者不知道可以经由典藏库，提供使用已出版的作品（注52）。

注52: Swan, Alma, Open Access self-archiving: An introduction = [开放获取自存档导论]. Executive Summary, 2005. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/01/jiscsum.pdf.

At the same time, these brief considerations represent the general framework conditions for greater acceptance and dissemination of Open Access publications:
以下简短的思考，表达对开放获取出版物更大接受度和散播性的基本框架条件：

   1. Open Access publications are seen by many as not carrying sufficient renown. New journals, such as those listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, have not yet managed to create a brand image. As long as existing reputable subscription journals cannot be turned into Open Access publications, the ‘green road’ promises more success. But it is essential to inform academics that they can first publish in high-ranking journals and then subsequently deposit their articles in repositories, and under what conditions.
    1、多数人认为开放获取出版物的知名度不足，被开放获取期刊目录收录的新期刊，尚未建立其品牌形象。只要已有信誉的订阅期刊未转变为开放获取出版物，自存档的“玉律”就有更大的发展空间。但有必要告知学者，他们可以先在高排名期刊发表其论文，然后在其它条件下，把论文置于典藏库。

   2. It is essential to inform about legal, technical, and organisational aspects, and in particular about all the researchers’ possibilities of making their own research results available in Open Access without too much investment. In this regard, the information platform http://www.open-access.net sponsored by the DFG should provide an important component for German-speaking researchers.
    2、提供足够的法律、技术和组织方面的信息，让研究人员不需做太大的投资，就能以开放获取方式，使自己的研究成果可得。在这一点上，德国研究基金会主办的信息平台http://www.open-access.net，应该可以为讲德语的研究者提供重要的信息。

   3. Publishing in Open Access mode should not fail because authors cannot afford to pay for it. It is up to funding and research organisations to take the principle of recognising the cost of publication as a component of the total research costs seriously. The deliberately reticent financing of publication costs — for example the DFG’s lump sum of just EUR 750 a year — can be  explained by the fact that those providing the publication service do not make their price policy sufficiently transparent for research-grant providers. If in future publishers explain their pricing strategy in a way that others can understand, more courageous decisions on the part of grant-providers when it comes to funding Open Access publications may become possible. In this regard, the setting up of a working group on pricing transparency was recommended at the ‘Academic Publishing in Europe 2007’ conference.
    3、不能因为作者无力负担出版费用，就让开放获取出版模式夭折。资助单位与研究机构应当认真考虑，把出版费用视为整体研究经费的一部份。刻意漠视出版费用的行为──如德国研究基金会每年只给750欧元──可以解释为对研究资助者而言，出版单位的价格政策不够透明。如果未来出版社能将其定价策略解释清楚，资助者更有理由做出果敢的决定，尽可能地资助开放获取出版物。由此，“2007年欧洲学术出版”会议建议，设立一个关于价格透明化的工作小组。

   4. Authors must be given support in legal matters (‘What articles may I place in repositories?’, ‘How do I protect my rights as an author?’), as well as technological and organisational matters (‘How do I upload my article on our university server?’). Above all, it must be conveyed that Open Access publications cannot simply be used or edited by others as they see fit, but rather that authors — for example via particular licences — are in a position to determine who can use their research results, how they can use them, and for what purposes. With appropriate advice and support, for example when setting up an Open Access publishing infrastructure, in particular academic libraries will be taking on new tasks, and must reposition themselves in the rapidly changing world of academic communication.
    4、必须给予作者法律方面的支持（“何种论文可以放在典藏库？”、“如何保障我的作者权益？”），以及技术和组织方面的支持（“如何上传论文至本大学的服务器？”）。总之，必须传达一个讯息，开放获取出版物不能简化为让其他人随意使用或编辑，只有作者──例如经由特定的许可──才有权利决定谁能使用其研究成果、如何使用或基于何等目的。经由适当的建议与支持，如设立开放获取出版基础设施，学术图书馆才能够加入新的工作项目，在快速变迁的学术交流世界里，重新定位自身的立场。

   5. Role models are essential. If senior and highly respected scientists and scholars publish their research work in Open Access channels, their example will  encourage other authors to make their own publications available free of charge.
    5、榜样是至关重要的。如果资深与受人尊敬的科学家和学者将其研究成果在开放获取管道发表，他们的榜样将鼓励其它作者免费提供自己的出版物。


Finally, it is worth pointing out that reservations vis-à-vis Open Access publishing on the part of some authors are not due to the issues of cost-free access. Rather, what authors seem to fear is electronic publication, whether cost-free to the user or under licence. Many academics believe that the quality of electronic publications is lower than that of printed publications, and that the long-term archiving and accessibility of digital publications is in no way secured(53). What is revealed here is a profound uncertainty on the part of authors in the face of a phase of fundamental and comprehensive upheaval in academic communication, in which Open Access is just one of many aspects.
最后，值得指出的是，部份作者对开放获取出版持保留态度，并非因为免费获取问题。相反地，作者似乎担心的是电子出版物，而不在意用户免费或需要许可。许多学者相信，电子出版物的质量低于印刷出版物，并且数字出版物的长期存档和获取，仍无保障（注53）。这反映作者面对学术交流中基本且全面的巨变，有很多不确定性，开放获取仅是众多选项之一。

注53: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 2005 op. cit., pp. 48-51.

The extent to which Open Access is still to be addressed as a transitional phenomenon was shown in a recent survey of 688 researchers in IT, German philology and medicine who have published academic articles. Many of those surveyed state that even though they and their close colleagues are not doing so, they think that leading colleagues of other disciplines are already publishing their articles in Open Access mode: ‘This [...] is typical of the “wait and see” position in which many scientists currently find themselves, with regard to Open Access publishing. Many think that others are already doing it, but not they themselves and their close colleagues’(54).
最近对德国688名研究人员的调查显示，这些曾发表学术论文的IT、德语与医学专家认为，开放获取仅是过渡的现象。许多受访者指出，尽管他们和他们熟稔的同事没有这样做，但他们认为，其它领域的杰出同行，已经采纳开放获取模式发表论文：“这是典型的‘观望’立场，目前许多科学家对开放获取出版采取此态度。很多人认为，其它人已经这样做，但他们自己和他们熟稔的同事还没有加入（注54）。

注54: Hess,Thomas,Wigand, Rolf T., Mann, Florian & von Walter, Benedikt, Open Access and Science Publishing. Results of a Study on Researcher’s Acceptance and Use of Open Access Publishing. = [开放获取和科学出版：研究者对开放获取出处的接受度与使用情况研究结果] http://openaccess-study.com/Hess_Wigand_Mann_Walter_2007_Open_Access_ Management_Report.pdf.


p. 69-72

Open Access: Opportunities and challenges. A handbook [开放获取 : 机会及挑战] / European Commission/German Commission for UNESCO). -- Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008. -- 144 pp., 14.8 x 21.0 cm. -- ISBN 978-92-79-06665-8. -- EUR 23459, http://tinyurl.com/3q8wo5