Begin forwarded message: > From: "Andras Holl" <[email protected]> > Subject: [BOAI] Re: On the proposal to raise the Green OA goalpost from > Gratis to CC-BY > Date: 11 October, 2012 7:42:05 AM EDT > To: [email protected] > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Hi David, > > I have argued against including CC BY requirement for the Seal, without > success. > I am not sure everyone using CC BY understands what is it about, and > whether it is really what they want - apparently not. As Stevan just > commented, > it is about re-use, not access. As I have commented, thoughts, numbers, > assertions etc. in scientific articles can be reused without CC, and the > articles > themselves are not things one would want to reuse. (Reuse for an article > could be re-publishing. In the past re-publishing was important for paper > articles, but now? Access solves everything. Other re-use scenario could > be distributing copies for a class of students. Again - if it is accessible, > why hand out copies? But I think even such distribution is possible without > CC by fair use.) > Data mining possibilities are important, but CC BY is not about data mining. > Figures in the articles, on the other hand, could be put nder CC BY! > > The argument that many people publishes in journals with the seal, therefore > CC BY is good, is not very convincing... I have not done a survey within the > author > community of the journal I run, neither in the community of users of my > repositories, > but I have the strong feeling that many of them does not know or care much > about OA. > They publish in a journal, because it is perceived as a "good journal", and > they do > not care about the details how the OA contributes to the impact. They deposit > articles > to the repository because they are mandated to do so. Some of them has > difficulties > choosing the access and copyright models in EPrints, and acknowledge that > they have > selected those more or less randomly. Why should scientists understand CC BY > if > we do not understand it? > > Andras Holl > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:38:19 +0100, David Prosser wrote > > The SPARC Europe Seal for Open Access Journals (Tom rather mangels the > > name) is still going: > > > > http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempl&templ=faq&uiLanguage=en#seal > > > > Journals that match the standards of the Seal are labelled as such in the > > DOAJ - there are currently just under 1000 journals with the Seal. > > > > The thousands of authors who have published CC-BY articles don't appear to > > share Tom's view that liberal rights assignments are nonsense > > > > David > > > > On 10 Oct 2012, at 17:57, Prof. T.D. Wilson wrote: >> Steven Harnad is certainly right on this issue, but the cause of it is the >> altogether impracticable definition of "open access" by the BOAI - the >> notion that authors should give up, effectively, ALL commercial rights to >> their work, allowing use "for any other lawful purpose, without financial, >> legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining >> access to the internet itself", leaving only "control over the integrity of >> their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited". We have a >> situation in which authors are asked to abandon their rights to the >> publisher, and now they are being asked to abandon them to anyone at all. >> It was this nonsense that led open access publishers, including those who do >> not levy author charges, to protest the idea that this definition should >> form the basis for some kind of SPARC award for OA journals - the opposition >> was such that, as far as I'm aware, we have never heard anything more about >> the award. >> > >> > On 10 October 2012 14:49, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > ** Cross-Posted ** >> > >> > This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher >> > community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA >> > mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free >> > online access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): >> > >> > 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should >> > on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use >> > and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green >> > OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence >> > another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold >> > CC-BY). >> > >> > 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free >> > online access) is readily reachable is precisely because it requires only >> > free online access and not more. >> > >> > 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green >> > OA today. >> > >> > 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA Button can tide over user >> > needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of journals. >> > >> > 5. "Upgrading" Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would >> > mean that most journals would immediately adopt Green OA embargoes, and >> > their length would be years, not months. >> > >> > 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become >> > legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby >> > doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. >> > >> > 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics >> > and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all >> > fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby >> > victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply >> > prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and >> > little OA). >> > >> > 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is >> > not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a >> > conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any >> > rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any >> > subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, >> > thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his >> > costs: Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin >> > or a forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... >> > >> > 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and >> > Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action. >> > >> > 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its >> > authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that >> > motivates the quest for CC-BY!): >> > >> > 11. And the very real threat of legal action facing Green CC-BY >> > self-archiving by authors and Green CC-BY mandates by institutions (unlike >> > the bogus threat of legal action against Gratis Green self-archiving and >> > Gratis Green mandates) would of course put an end to authors' providing >> > Green OA and institutions' mandating Green OA. >> > >> > 12. In theory, funders, unlike institutions, can mandate whatever they >> > like, since they are paying for the research: But if a funder Gold OA >> > mandate like Finch/RCUK's -- that denies fundees the right to publish in >> > any journal that does not offer either Gold CC-BY or Gratis-Green with at >> > most a 6-12 month embargo, and that only allows authors to pick Green if >> > the journal does not offer Gold -- is already doomed to author resentment, >> > resistance and non-compliance, then adding the constraint that any Green >> > must be CC-BY would be to court outright researcher rebellion. >> > >> > In short, the pre-emptive insistence upon CC-BY OA, if recklessly and >> > irrationally heeded, would bring the (already slow) progress toward OA, >> > and the promise of progress, to a grinding halt. >> > >> > Finch/RCUK's bias toward paid Gold over cost-free Green was clearly a >> > result of self-interested publisher lobbying. But if it were compounded by >> > a premature and counterproductive insistence on CC-BY for all by a small >> > segment of the researcher community, then the prospects of OA (both Gratis >> > and CC-BY), so fertile if we at last take the realistic, pragmatic course >> > of mandating Gratis Green OA globally first, would become as fallow as >> > they have been for the past two decades, for decades to come. >> > >> > Some quote/comments follow below: >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > Jan Velterop: We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author was >> > the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so >> > could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository >> > irrespective of the publisher's views. >> >> > >> > I said -- because it's true, and two decades' objective evidence shows it >> > -- that authors can deposit the refereed, final draft with no realistic >> > threat of copyright action from the publisher. >> > >> >> > >> >> > JV: If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence >> > to the manuscript version. >> >> > >> > Nothing of the sort. Author self-archiving to provide free online access >> > (Gratis Green OA) is one thing -- claiming and dispensing re-use and >> > republication rights (CC-BY) is quite another. >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > JV: If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open >> > access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, >> > published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by >> > Stevan Harnad is invalid. >> >> > >> > Incorrect. Authors can make their refereed final drafts free for all >> > online without the prospect of legal action from the publisher, but not >> > with a CC-BY license to re-use and re-publish. >> > >> > Moreover, for authors who elect to comply with publisher embargoes on >> > Green Gratis OA, there is the option of depositing in Closed Access and >> > relying on the Almost-OA Button to provide eprint-requesters with >> > individual eprints during the embargo. This likewise does not come with >> > CC-BY rights. >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > JV: Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be >> > deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence >> > his U-turn, I don't know. >> >> > >> > No U-turn whatsoever. Just never the slightest implication from me that >> > anything more than free online access was intended. >> > >> >> > >> >> > JV: But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also >> > means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach >> > the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the >> > author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers >> > can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the >> > repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't >> > like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply >> > the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. >> >> > >> > The above is extremely unrealistic and counterproductive policy advice to >> > institutions and funders. >> > >> > If an OA mandate is gratuitously upgraded to CC-BY it just means that most >> > authors will be unable to get their papers published in their journal of >> > choice if they comply with the mandate. So authors will not comply with >> > the mandate, and the mandate will fail. >> > >> > >> Peter Murray-Rust: If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm >> for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I >> can see no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they >> fight anyway >> >> > >> > The downside is that authors won't fight, and hence OA itself will lose >> > the global Gratis Green OA that is fully within its reach, and stay in the >> > non-OA limbo (neither Gratis nor CC-BY, neither Green nor Gold) in which >> > most research still is today -- and has been for two decades. >> > >> > And the irony is that -- speaking practically rather than ideologically -- >> > the fastest and surest prospect for both CC-BY and Gold is to first >> > quickly reach global Gratis Green OA. Needlessly over-reaching can >> > undermine all of OA's objectives. >> > >> > >> PMR: It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It >> is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem at >> all. >> > >> >> > >> > On the contrary: raising the Gratis Green 6-12 goalposts to immediate >> > Green CC-BY would make the Finch/RCUK a pure hybrid-Gold mandate and >> > nothing else. And its failure would be a resounding one. >> > >> > >> PMR: And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week >> >> > >> > That would certainly be a prominent historic epitaph for OA. I hope, on >> > the contrary, that pragmatic voices will be raised during OA week, so that >> > we can get on with reaching for the reachable instead of gratuitously >> > raising the goalposts to unrealistic heights. >> > >> > Stevan Harnad >> > >> > -- >> > To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: >> > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > -- >> > >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Professor >> > T.D. Wilson, PhD, PhD (h.c.) >> > Publisher and Editor in Chief: Information Research >> > http://informationr.net/ir/ >> > E-mail: [email protected] >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > <ATT00001..txt> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Andras Holl / Holl Andras e-mail: [email protected] > Konkoly Observatory / MTA CsFK CsI Tel.: +36 1 3919368 Fax: +36 1 > 2754668 > IT manager / Szamitastechn. rendszervez. Mail: H1525 POBox 67, Budapest, > Hungary > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
