Chapter 4: Political Perspectives 75


第四章 政治观点


Controversial Issues in the Context of Open Access / By Ralf Schimmer, Max Planck Digital Library
开放获取的争议 / 罗夫·斯梅尔（普马数字图书馆）


Where there is smoke, there is fire. If this cliché contains some truth, the dense smoke (the frequency and tone of the current debate on Open Access) must conceal a fire that is burning quite fiercely. The discussions and arguments on this topic are intense and bitter, not only in Germany. The typical munitions from the arsenal of political lobbying are deployed more and more openly: one expert opinion on the tail of another, one position statement quickly followed by the next. A competition of appeals, resolutions, declarations and petitions can be observed.
无风不起浪，如果这种陈词滥调还有一些真理，巨浪（当前辩论开放获取的频率和语气）必定因强风而起。这些相当激烈与痛苦的讨论和争议，不以德国为限。政治游说的声浪，越来越公开：专家的意见首尾相连，立场声明一个紧接着一个。不同的呼吁、决议、宣言和请愿书相互竞争。


In the Open Access debate, there is a collision between the interests of large and powerful collective actors: the academic world, the publishing industry, the public, and the community. An institutional structure that for a long time had seemed to have found a stable balance that satisfied everyone has been put out of kilter for good through the breathtaking speed at which the Internet has developed, progressive digitalisation, and the huge changes in academic communication. As a result, issues which in the past were rarely of public concern and which were usually negotiated only in specialist circles have become the topic of wide-ranging public debate.

在开放获取的辩论里，各方的利益彼此冲撞：学术界、出版业、公众以及社区。长期以来，体制结构似乎已经稳定平衡，令每个人都满意。然而，因特网的发展、数字化的进展以及学术交流的巨大变化，以惊人的速度打破了体制结构的平衡。因此，过去很少被公众关注、通常只在专家圈里磋商的议题，已经成为各界广泛辩论的焦点。


When it comes to access to knowledge, scientists and scholars aim at maximum dissemination, and emphasise the new possibilities offered by the Internet with regard to immediacy, affordability and superiority. Nowadays, from the academic point of view, the dissemination of research results looks something like this: most research worldwide is carried out at publicly funded institutions, primarily universities. The results of publicly funded research are mostly passed on free of charge to publishers, where they are prepared for publication. The publishers organise and finance what is known as the peer review process as the central quality-assurance instrument. This depends on the collaboration (which is as a rule unpaid) of publicly funded scientists and scholars. At the end of the publication process, publicly funded libraries have to buy back publicly funded research results, which have been quality assured by publicly funded scientists and scholars acting as reviewers, in the form of constantly increasing rates of subscription to journals. Looking at the process like this, it would appear that the taxpayer is shelling out at a number of stages along the way. This in turn leads to talk about the privatisation of public funds. The cost argument, however, is by no means the only one adduced by academics. According to them, there are not just financial, but also legal and technical barriers that make the publication of academic research results in the Internet age far from being as efficient and sustainable as they would wish or think possible.

涉及获取知识时，科学家和学者的目标是尽量传播出去，并强调因特网提供的直接、可负担、优越的可能性。如今，从学术的角度来看，研究成果的传播看起来像是这样的：全世界大多数的研究由大学等公共机构资助；公共资助的研究成果，免费交给出版社，由他们准备出版；出版社组织与资助所谓的同行评审，作为质量保证的手段，这个程序依赖于公共资助的科学家和学者的合作（按惯例是不受报酬的）。在出版过程的末端，公共资助的图书馆付出不断上涨的期刊订阅费，向出版社买回经由公共资助的研究成果，而这些研究成果是由公共资助的科学家和学者通过评审加以保证的。看着这样的过程，似乎纳税人在若干阶段都在付钱，因而又引发关于公共资助私有化的讨论。然而，费用决不是学者提出的唯一理由。他们认为，不只是财务、而且是法律和技术的障碍，使得因特网时代的学术研究成果出版，未得到他们期望或相信的效率和可持续性。


If one considers the various academic disciplines, one will see that there is no uniform attitude, indeed not even an unambiguous attitude, towards Open Access. The preconditions and cultures, as well as the possibilities and requirements in different academic fields are too distinct from one another to allow us to speak of a coherent academic standpoint. There are substantial differences between the natural sciences and the humanities, but also between the individual natural sciences or even sub-divisions thereof. Even so, there is generally a growing interest in the theme of Open Access. What unites academia in all this is the feeling of living in what may be a revolutionary period in which more and more paths for further improvement of the effectiveness of research are opening up. This suggests that academics’ discomfort with the traditional publishing system and its current allocation of resources will increase.

各学科对开放获取的态度并不一致，也不明确。不同学科领域的先决条件和文化，以及可能与需求截然不同，很难产生一致的学术立场。不但自然科学和人文科学之间有本质差异，各自然学科、甚至其各分支之间，也是如此。尽管如此，对开放获取的兴趣日增，则是一致的。把学术界团结在一起的，是大家都感到处于一个革命性的阶段，进一步改善研究效果的途径越来越多，这也导致学者对于传统出版系统及其分配资源现况的不满日增。


This situation seems quite different from the point of view of commercial information providers. Publishers argue that it is part of their remit and their culture-historical achievement to contribute to the dissemination of knowledge. Many publishers see themselves explicitly as partners of academia, highlighting their massive investment in academic quality assurance and in electronic distribution platforms, and stressing the fact that never before has so much content been available to scientists and scholars as today. Publishers counter the complaints of academics about qualitative restriction by pointing to vast quantitative growth in the form of constantly increasing contents and user numbers. They underscore their competence and experience in ensuring the quality and integrity of the content of articles, warning against underestimating the costs and organisational demands of electronic publication and distribution processes, and insisting that there is no alternative to the current subscription model. They counter the brave new world promised by the Internet with warnings about the danger of loss of quality in academic communication. In the eyes of publishers, Open Access threatens not just the academic journal as a cultural good, but also substantial investments in information infrastructures, jobs, and ultimately a whole industry. Optimum access to knowledge, according to the publishers, will continue to lie in the goods and services offered by commercial information providers.

从商业信息提供者角度来看，却是另一番景况。出版社声称，传播知识是其职权范围，也是其历史文化成就。许多出版社自诩为学术界的伙伴，突显他们在保证学术质量及电子发行平台方面的大量投资，并强调今天为科学家和学者提供的丰富内容，是前所未有的。出版社反驳学者对质量限制的抱怨，指认是因为不断增多的内容和用户。出版社强调他们在确保论文质量与内容完整的能力和经验，警告对电子出版及发行过程成本及组织需求过于低估，并坚持现有的订阅模式没有替代方案。面对因特网的新世界，他们警告流失学术交流质量的危险。在出版社眼中，开放获取不仅威胁学术期刊文化，而且对信息基础设施的投资、工作职位、甚至整个行业都是威胁。根据出版社的说法，获取知识最适宜的途径，仍有赖商业信息提供者所提供的商品与服务。


The points of view are no less diametrically opposed when it comes to copyright and the question of what and whose interests this is supposed to protect. For artists who live by their creativity, the significance of copyright is not the same as it is for academics whose livelihoods are guaranteed by their salaried positions and whose main interest as a rule lies in their academic results being accessible to as broad a public as possible. In particular, many scientists and scholars see that they are surrendering extensive rights to the publishers in their publishing contracts. They are of the opinion that copyright, at least where it has an effect on science or scholarship, ultimately serves the interests not of the author, but above all of the publishing industry. Not only many academics, but also other institutions and organisations with a public remit, such as public-service broadcasters, schools, cultural institutions and consumer protection organisations, see the restriction of rights in the digital media more and more as a problem. With increasing vehemence, many are demanding a simple and unambiguous right of use, which for example would allow authors, after a defined embargo period, to make their own work available on their own homepages or on an institutional document server for non-commercial use.

谈到版权，以及版权要保护什么和谁的利益时，各方观点截然不同。对依赖创造力为生的艺术家，版权的意义不同于生活由薪水保障的学者，学者的主要利益，在于其学术成果尽可能被公众获取。尤其是许多科学家和学者发现，他们正以合约方式，把大量权利给予出版社。他们认为，版权在对科学或学术的影响方面，最终服务的不是作者的利益，首要的还是出版业的利益。不只是很多学者，还有其他公益机构和组织，如公共服务广播公司、学校、文化机构和消费者保护组织，将限制数字媒体权利，视为一个越来越严重的问题。争论渐趋强烈，很多人都要求一个简单明了的使用权，其中包括经过一个禁锢期后，允许作者把自己的作品置于自己的主页，或置于机构文件服务器里，供非商业使用。


The publishers also invoke the authors in this regard, because they see themselves as the guardians of authors’ interests. Copyright is a necessary legal framework that creates legal security and without it, commercial activity would be impossible. It takes the interests of both authors and publishers into account.

出版社也就此呼吁作者，因为他们自视为作者利益的维护者。版权是建立法律保障的必要法律框架，少了它，不可能有商业活动，它考虑作者和出版社双方的利益。


Without the exploitation rights defined in copyright law, there would be no safeguard for publishers’ investment and thus the framework which supports the whole publishing system would simply not exist. For this reason, the publishing side has hitherto vehemently opposed the demands for generous rights of exploitation for the authors, and any legislation initiatives to this effect.

若没有在版权法里界定开发的权利，就不能保障出版社的投资，支撑整个出版系统的框架，将根本不存在。因此，出版方始终强烈反对给予作者开发的大量权利，以及具有此等效应的立法举措。


Apart from academia and publishers, the Open Access debate is increasingly extending to other institutions with a public remit, in particular a cultural public remit. For some, Open Access represents the possibility of updating their remit and opening up new fields of activity for themselves. The declared aim is always to make publicly funded knowledge available to the public quickly and free of charge (or at least, affordably). For libraries, the theme of Open Access is thus vital, as they are the ones suffering particularly from having to pay the increasing costs of academic publications while their budgets stagnate, and they therefore see no solution but to cancel subscriptions. This has a negative effect for library users, and of course is not in the publishers’ interests either. Admittedly, some libraries also feel that resolutely implemented Open Access would inevitably lead to structural and administrative changes in universities and other academic institutions, and thus to a change in their importance and responsibilities.

除了学术界和出版社之外，开放获取的争论日益延伸至其它公益机构，特别是文化公益机构。对于某些人来说，开放获取代表更新其公益与开创新活动领域的可能性。公布的目标始终是：公共资助的知识，应快速、免费（或至少是可负担地）提供给公众。对图书馆而言，开放获取的主题很必要，因为他们深受其苦，尤其是在预算停滞，却必须支付日增的学术出版物费用时，除停订外无解决之道。这对图书馆用户有负面的影响，当然也不符合出版社的利益。无可否认，也有图书馆认为，落实开放获取将不可避免地导致大学和其它学术机构的结构性和行政性改变，从而改变其重要性和责任。


In recent years, university publishing houses of German universities have witnessed a minirenaissance in that they have been newly founded or restructured with the remit of online publishing under Open Access conditions. In this process, they are developing innovative approaches, both technically and in the field of business models. In the schools sector, in the public-service media, in the Standing Conference of State Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs, in consumer protection, and in many other sectors with a cultural sphere of activity, there is a hope of better access to information and a minimisation of thresholds and barriers.

近年来，德国大学的出版社见证了这一迷你文艺复兴，它们新创建或者重组，在开放获取条件下公益在线出版。在这个过程中，它们发展创新的技术和商业模式。学校、公共服务媒体、德国各州教育与文化事务部长常务会议、消费者保护及许多其它与文化领域相关的部门，有着共同的愿望，期待更佳的获取信息与最小的门坎和障碍。


Another area of discussion, albeit one that is not a focus of attention, is free access to information held by public authorities and similar publicly funded bodies. The demand for Open Access seems to many to be incomplete while information not subject to data-protection constraints, such as geographical, geological or climatological data held by ministries or planning and environmental authorities, is also not made freely available to the public and therefore to research. In archives, museums and other cultural heritage institutions, the debate on Open Access will doubtlessly intensify.

还有一个没有那么受关注的议题，是自由获取由公共机构及类似的公共资助团体的信息。开放获取的需求似乎不完整，对于不受数据保护约束的信息，如由政府部门或规划与环境机构掌握的地理、地质或气候数据，也没有免费提供给公众，并用于研究。在档案馆、博物馆和其它文化遗产机构中，对开放获取的争论，无疑会加剧。


This article is intended to cast some light on the controversies that exist in connection with Open Access. It has shown that the fracture lines that currently exist, in particular between academia and the publishing houses, are not negligible. But at the same time, it would be wrong to paint a simple black-and-white picture. Neither of the camps is monolithic, and both show pioneering spirit and a readiness to innovate on the one hand and defensive tendencies and obstinacy on the other. ‘When the wind of change blows,’ says a Chinese proverb, ‘some build walls and the others windmills.’ At the moment, both walls and windmills are being built on both sides. But there is certainly room for hope that one day the consensus will be broad enough to build windmills together, or — to be coherent with the current potentials — entire wind-farms.

本文旨在提供与开放获取相关的争论。目前存在于学术界和出版社之间的鸿沟不容忽视，但把它描绘成单纯的黑白图片，也是不正确的。两个阵营也不是铁板一块，双方都有表现出开拓进取精神和创新意愿的一面，也有防御倾向和固执的另一面。中国谚语云：“风起时，有人筑墙、有人造风车”。现在双方都在筑墙与造风车，不过会有达成共识的一天，大家一起建风车，或者以现有的潜力，造完整的风力发电场。


p. 75-79
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