On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

I recently sat through an hour lecture by SH whose subtitle was "What Peter
> Murray-Rust thinks and why he is wrong". The thoughts attributed to me were
> factually incorrect.

One of the wonderful things about facts is that sometimes one can actually
check them, objectively!

The full video of that lecture is
all to see, along with a PDF
containing my written text and all my
I would be very interested to hear if anyone finds anywhere either a
subtitle "*What Peter Murray-Rust thinks and why he is wrong*" or anything
that even resembles it.

In that lecture, I did make some references to Peter Murray-Rust, his work
and his goals, in what I believe was an entirely respectful and
complimentary way, praising his contributions and sharing his goal of
machine data-mining rights (CC-BY) over all journal articles where it's
needed (such as in his field).

The only two points on which I diverged from Peter Murray-Rust were points
of strategic priority:

(1) I said that the right to do machine data-mining on journal articles
(CC-BY) was even harder to get from publishers than the right to make
journal articles freely accessible online (Gratis Green OA), so it would be
better to first grasp the Gratis Green OA that is already within reach at
no extra cost -- by mandating it -- rather than renounce it in favour of
over-reaching instead for what is not yet within immediate reach at no
extra cost, as the Finch Report had recommended doing.

(2) And I also said that the Finch/RCUK strategy -- of pre-emptively paying
publishers extra (over and above paying subscriptions) for CC-BY Gold OA to
UK's 6% of all worldwide research output, in all fields, when very few
fields urgently need CC-BY but all feeds need free online access -- is not
only a waste of money, but it does not even produce what the few fields
that need CC-BY require, which is data-mining rights for *all* the
worldwide research output in the field, not just the UK's 6% of it. On the
contrary, the pre-emptive payment policy of Finch/RCUK simply makes it
harder to get even Gratis Green OA for the rest of the world's research
output (94%) (because it is unaffordable, and because it incentivizes
publishers' offering hybrid Gold OA and increasing Green OA embargoes).

Now if what Peter Murray-Rust thinks is what BIS/Finch/RCUK think, then I
was indeed, inter alia, criticizing what Peter Murray-Rust thinks.

But certainly not under the subtitle "What Peter Murray-Rust thinks and why
he is wrong"...

My talk was not about Peter Murray-Rust.

Regarding the points about EPMC below, as noted, domain repositories are
very welcome and useful, however, there are strong practical reasons for
not making them the direct locus of deposit, but rather making them
automated harvesters or importers of deposits from institutional
repositories. The main reasons are: (i) the integration of funder and
institutional mandates, (ii) mandate compliance verification by fundees'
institutions, and (iii) ensuring that researchers need deposit only once.

I don't see anything remotely *ad hominem* in any of this.

Stevan Harnad

> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> (2) Europe (formerly UK) PubMed Central (EPMC) is an OA collection of
>> European biomedical articles.
> This is seriously incorrect and misleading. UKPMC contains essentially all
> of the content and many of the facilities of PubMedCentral and covers
> closed access as well as open Access (however the term is defined). It also
> has global content, not just European.
> I am on the advisory and project board of UKPMC. I have have copied
> colleagues and suggested that they give a formal statement (as it it more
> authoritative than posting from me).
> I will note that I am a strong supporter of domain repositories such as
> UKPMC and see them as entirely appropriate for the deposition of
> manuscripts. They are set up to do so and have a service for conversion of
> manuscripts. UKPMC has a wide range of search and integration facilities
> which are completely lacking in the fragmented institutional repository
> infrastructure. For example it is possible to link manuscripts to species,
> diseases and much more.
> "Open Access" is a complex subject and progress depends on informed
> discussion which includes getting one's facts right. I would hope that the
> GOAL list would encourage such discussion, including contributions from
> those who propose methods other than Green for OA. Having been the focus of
> several (unjustified) ad hominem attacks on this list I shall not raise the
> temperature unless it is clear that there can be a fair hearing. I recently
> sat through an hour lecture by SH whose subtitle was "What Peter
> Murray-Rust thinks and why he is wrong". The thoughts attributed to me were
> factually incorrect.
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
GOAL mailing list

Reply via email to