Talks at Berlin5 on Open Access


Antonella De Robbio has very kindly made available the talks ate Berlin 5 Open Access : From Practice to Impact : Consequences of Knowledge Dissemination 19 – 21 September, 2007
They can be viewed starting from the Conference website or from
I am especially grateful since many of my talks involve demonstrations from the web and do not use Powerpoint. My own talk has acceptable audio but is a bit fuzzy on the slides. However I created several blog entries
berlin5 : Open Access to Research Data: surmountable challenges),
berlin5 : how to progress Open Data?
berlin5 : what did I say?)
which may help to fill in some gaps.
[Verbal slips – I referred to ACS’s description of NIH as “socialist”, when the exact term – as on the slide I showed – is “socialized science” [*] – my apologies. And I referred to Peter Suber’s categorization of Open access as “access barriers and Permission barriers” when the better term is “price barriers and permission barriers”]
It is always slightly scary to see what you actually said – particularly since I do not normally have a set order in my slides.
[*} Chambers derfines socialize/socialized as:
socialize or socialise verb (socialized, socializing) 1 intrans to meet with people on an informal, friendly basis. 2 intrans to mingle or circulate among guests at a party; to behave sociably. 3 to organize into societies or communities. 4 to make someone or something social.

This entry was posted in berlin5, open issues. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Talks at Berlin5 on Open Access

  1. bill says:

    I think your first “slip” was actually not in error. I’m pretty sure that what the ACS meant was “socialist science”, because “socialist” is a dirty word over here. The connotation is “dirty godless Leftists taking away our liberty and individualism and giving all our hard-earned money to the poor, who are after all only poor because they deserve it”, or some such. The ACS was following the pitbull script: tar OA with the socialist brush.

  2. pm286 says:

    (1). Thanks, Bill. From this side of the pond “socialized” has no political connotations (see Chambers). It seems to be a purely US term. Wikipedia equates “socialized” with “socialism” and while WP is not always correct it’s a useful guide. There have been blog and list discussions (e.g. CHMINF – chemistry informatics – where the term is taken by US people to mean “socialist”. However Rudy Baum wrote to me and asked that I be precise and so I shall endeavour to be so.
    A Google search for “Socialized science” reveals primarily the ACS usage and commentary therein. Since the ACS have not defined the term, but used it in a political sense (i.e. regarding it as incompatible with a Republican government) it appears pejorative of something that has not been defined.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *