On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote: > The potential for instability you describe lends support > to the necessity of inclusion in the definition of Open > Access of this: "['open access' means that:] The article > is universally and freely accessible via the Internet, in > an easily readable format and deposited immediately upon > publication, without embargo, in an agreed format - > current preference is XML with a declared DTD - in at > least one widely and internationally recognized open > access repository (such as PubMed Central)" (from the > BioMed Central definition: > http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/charter). We > deposit also in HTML and PDF, but both are of course based > on the underlying XML. [remainder of message snipped]
Dear Jan - Thanks for your response, and for your reference to the BMC definition of open access. Although I do have some doubts about this particular definition, I don't have similar doubts about what BMC is actually doing. I think that it's playing an exemplary role as a publisher of "gold" open-access journals. Clearly, as Stevan Harnad has already emphasized, BMC's definition, in comparison with the BOAI definition, is a much "stronger form of open access" (wording used by Michael Eisen, who would, if I understand correctly, also include "conversion to XML" and "reuse and redistribution" in his own preferred "stronger" definition of open access), see: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3366.html At present, I'm inclined to side with those, like Barbara Kirsop, who regard a "stronger definition" of open access as "organic food for the starving" - see Barbara's post: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3352.html Or, in less dramatic language, very desirable for fostering open access and making it more attractive to authors, but not essential components of a basic definition of open access (such as the BOAI definition). Do such quibbles about definitions really matter much? I'm inclined to agree with those who believe that they do. For example, immediate deposition "in at least one widely and internationally recognized open access repository (such as PubMed Central)" is clearly a requirement for "long-term" or "strong" (or, "organic") open access. But, it isn't essential for "open access for the starving". A stability issue of some substantial importance (e.g. from the perspective of authors) is the stability of the URL(s) that provide OA to a research report (whether or not it's "strong" OA). A URL that's prone to "link rot" probably shouldn't be included in the reference list of any research report that it's author hopes will be an endurable one. Of course, because a great many articles are never cited at all, this is only an issue for those articles that *are* cited. And, it's very difficult to predict, in advance, which articles will be of enduring interest, and which will not. My own opinion is that prior-to-publication peer review plays a necessary (but not foolproof!) role in attempts to make such predictions. But, peer review is probably much more effective at identification of the currently- fashionable, rather than the endurable. I'll end this rather long message with an anecdote. Some time (decades!) ago, I was fortunate enough to be involved (along with some very talented colleagues) in novel research on murine hematopoietic stem cells. Some of this work (to my surprise!) has had lasting impact. See, for example, "Hematopoietic Stem Cells Classics": http://www.nature.com/ni/special_focus/hsc/classic_links.html To the best of my knowledge, only one of our old stem cell papers is currently openly accessible (via a URL that may not have long-term stability). The paper is: "Cytological demonstration of the clonal nature of spleen colonies derived from transplanted mouse marrow cells", Becker, A. J., McCulloch, E. A. & Till, J. E. Nature 197, 452-454 (1963). A (rather poor-quality) PDF version of this paper is at: http://www.nature.com/ni/special_focus/hsc/pdfs/197_452.pdf My main points? I suppose that they are these: There are various ways to obtain open access to published research reports. For most such reports, there will be only a few (if any!) interested readers, and the reports will be of only fleeting interest (for, say, about a year or so?), and then the research field will move on. Only a small minority of reports will be of enduring interest (e.g. to historians and/or philosophers, as well as to other researchers). It's these latter reports that are most in need of very stable URLs. But, most truly novel contributions are, quite often (how often?) not fashionable initially. That's why they are truly novel. They become fashionable (a "new paradigm") only later on, after they have passed some "tipping point", and have been accepted and adopted quite widely. It's very difficult to predict exactly which contributions will turn out to be merely fashionable, and which will prove to be endurable. The OA movement itself is providing an interesting case study. Which articles on OA will, in the future, be cited as "classics"? Predictions would be welcomed (but, only one per respondent, please!). Jim Till University of Toronto
