In the section on Online Accessibility, it deleted these words:
Disseminating research results efficiently to strengthen Europe's capacity to innovate, while ensuring an adequate reward for organisations and companies that invest in the scientific dissemination system.
The digital revolution has led to intense discussions between the research community and scientific publishers on the most efficient models to distribute scientific articles. Scientists advocate a system of open access, where publications and related data are freely accessible to all on the internet to maximise their use. Scientific publishers point to the value they add through the peer review system and enhanced services. This added value is essential for the functioning of the system and comes at a cost.
The aim is to guarantee wide access and usability of publications and research data, while at the same time rewarding investments in the scientific publishing system. Two basic options to make publications accessible for all through the internet are currently being envisaged:
Author pays publishing in which the author of the article (usually the funding body that supports the author) pays for the publication instead of the user.
Self-archiving in which the author deposits the peer-reviewed version of the article in an open archive, sometimes after an embargo period to allow the publishers to get a return on investment.
and replaced them with these:
Many researchers argue for an open-access system, with publications and data available to all online, free of charge.
Publishers often disagree, pointing to the large amounts they invest in the peer review system and other valuable services.
The challenge is to combine wide access with a fair return on investment for publishers. Two basic options are currently being considered:
Author-pays publishing – the author of an article (or the body funding the research) pays for publication rather than user
Self-archiving – the author deposits the peer-reviewed article in an open archive, sometimes after an embargo period – a delay to allow publishers to get a return on investment.
The revisions are more about tone and accent than substance. The first version made the debate appear intractable, while the second makes it appear resolvable. (It's relevant that the EC came to its own resolution of the debate last month with its OA pilot project for 20% of its 2007-2013 research budget.) The first version set out the possibly hopeless goal of mediating an intractable dispute, while the second faces up to the "challenge" of "combining" the goals of each side. The first said that gold and green OA were "being envisaged" while the second says they are "being considered". The first suggested that all researchers support OA and all publishers oppose it, while the second refers with less alarm to "many researchers" and "some publishers". The first highlighted the value publishers add, while the second highlights the money they spend. The first said that the value publishers add is "essential for the functioning of the system" while the second drops that claim and refocuses on giving publishers a "fair return on investment."
BTW, the page on the Digital Libraries Initiative itself was revised at the same time, and changed its description of the program focus on research from "scientific information - an important driver for innovation" to "scientific information – making research findings more widely available online and keeping them available over time."
Peter Suber at 9/21/2008 11:10:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.