So the definition of Open Access as formulated in the BOAI is now no more than
'mortal improvisation', according to Harnad.
What's happening is that for reasons of expediency, the definition of OA (which
didn't represent 'Holy Writ', but an ambitious goal, for the benefit of
science) is being changed, quite arbitrarily, instead of any OA achievements
being measured against the goal that has been set. The fact that Open Access as
defined in the BOAI seems practically not achievable with the so-called 'green'
road is no doubt the underlying reason. The intellectually honest way to deal
with that is not to change the definition, but to admit that whilst what has
been, and can be, achieved with self-archiving is a most important step towards
the ultimate goal of Open Access, the goal is not quite achievable that way.
The difficulty for Harnad c.s. is of course to admit that the 'gold' route to
OA clearly *can* comply with Open Access as defined in the BOAI. Neither 'gold'
nor 'green' have achieved full Open Access yet, that's clear. But the Open
Access of 'gold' is according to the BOAI definition, and most of the open
access of 'green' isn't.
Changing the definition – the goal – only serves to promote confusion and
ambiguity. Tampering with the definition makes the term Open Access so
ambiguous as to be meaningless. Anybody can now call just about any publishing
or repository offering Open Access, removing all clarity of purpose contained
in the original definition. The agenda seems to have changed from striving for
Open Access in any way possible, to undermining, come what may, the Open Access
that can be brought by the 'gold' route. A very sad state of affairs.
Jan Velterop
On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:00, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On 2012-08-28, at 4:26 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
>> Warning: I shall get shouted down for this post.
>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> "OA means free online access."
>> When and where and by whom was this decided? It is incompatible with the BBB
>> definitions.
>> One of the problems of "Open Access" as a movement is that the terms used
>> (in the period after BBB) are so poorly defined as to be essentially
>> meaningless - Humpty-Dumpty (" "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in
>> rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more
>> nor less.").
> Peter, you will not get shouted down -- but it would be a great help if you
> were to listen, because you have asked and been given this information now
> countless times.
>
> There have been updates of the BBB definition of OA, which was drafted in
> early days and has since seen a decade of developments not envisioned or
> anticipated in 2002:
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm#gratis-libre
>
> 1. Free online access is Gratis OA.
>
> 2. Free online access plus (some) re-use rights is Libre OA.
>
> 3. Gratis OA is a necessary condition for Libre OA.
>
> 4. Over sixty percent of journals already endorse immediate, un-embargoed
> Green Gratis OA.
>
> 5. In addition, about 40% more endorse Green Gratis OA after an embargo of
> 6-12 months.
>
> 6. Global Gratis Green OA is within reach of Green OA mandates (ID/OA +
> "Almost-OA" Button)
>
> 7. Libre OA is not within reach: publishers must be paid extra for it, in the
> form of Libre Gold OA fees, over and above the subscription fees already
> being paid by institutions worldwide.
>
> 8. All researchers, in all disciplines, want and need access to all refereed
> research, not just the journals their institutions can afford to subscribe
> to, i.e., Gratis OA.
>
> 9. Not all researchers, in all disciplines, want and need to provide re-use
> rights (Libre OA).
>
> 10. Hence Green Gratis OA is the overwhelmingly first and foremost priority.
>
> 11. Once Green Gratis OA is globally mandated by institutions and funders,
> Libre OA (and Gold OA) will follow as a natural matter of course.
>
> 12. Your field, chemistry, would greatly benefit from Libre OA, but it is
> also the field whose publishers are the most dead-set against OA, whether
> Gratis or Libre.
>
> 13. Your field, chemistry, like all other fields, would also greatly benefit
> from Gratis OA, so all researchers have access to all refereed research.
>
> 14. First things first.
>
> 15. The reason you get shouted down is that you keep putting the particular
> additional needs of your discipline ahead of the generic access needs of all
> disciplines.
>
> 16. The "A" in OA stands for access; the OA movement is not the Open License
> movement (though it will help the OL movement along).
>
> (Yes, Jan Velterop, for reasons of his own, also much debated in this Forum,
> has relentlessly insisted that substantive, strategic and pragmatic matters
> can somehow be settled by treating the BBB definition as if it had been Holy
> Writ rather than Mortal Improvisation, and as if nothing had been learned
> since 2002. Yes, that is at best BBB pedantry, and at worst BBB fetishism,
> but it certainly is not advancing the interests of all the researchers in the
> world, who want and need free online access but do not yet have it, in part
> because of BBB fetishism. Peter Murray-Rust, at least, has a
> discipline-specific reason for his impatience for Libre OA -- though he has
> no realistic means of reaching it before Gratis OA. Jan Velterop seems to be
> a BBB fundamentalist for ideological reasons. Jan will have to be patient,
> unless he comes up with a concrete and realistic strategy for reaching
> universal Libre OA faster than universal Green Gratis OA mandates. And --
> before you ask -- Finch/RCUK is most definitely not that realistic scenario.
> It is a fiasco in the making, unless -- as I fervently hope -- it will still
> be wisely revised to correct its fatal flaws:
> http://digital-research.oerc.ox.ac.uk/programme/tues-am-keynote )
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
