On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> wrote:
SHP See: *I don't want free online access: I want free online access with >> re-use rights! >> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1092-I-dont-want-free-online-access-I-want-free-online-access-with-re-use-rights%21.html>* >> > > I can't let this torrent of hypotheticals and suppositions stand > > This includes completely misleading statements such as: > > "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use > rights!" > > *SH rebuttal : But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a > field are near-useless...* > > "near-useless" is SH's judgment. He has no evidence for this and it's > simply catstrophically wrong… My research on 15-20% of the literature is > not "near-useless" and this will become clear in the next 1-2 months > Here's the full context of which PM-R has quoted a fragment, ignoring all the rest, and thereby missing the point entirely. Readers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions: "I don't want free online access<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/885-Open-Access-Gratis-and-Libre.html>: I want free online access with re-use rights<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#36.Re-Use> ! *But we don't even have free online access yet...* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But free online access is part of free online access with re-use rights...* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online access with re-use rights is not...* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But free online access today will pave the way for free online access with re-use rights tomorrow...* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are near-useless...* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But publishers allowing authors to provide free online access and re-use rights can immediately be undercut by free-riding rival publishers; publishers allowing authors to provide free online access alone cannot...* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But publishers will sooner allow authors to provide free online access than allow them to provide free online access with re-use rights…* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But institutions and funders can sooner mandate <http://roarmap.eprints.org/> free online access than free online access with re-use rights…* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even most or many users need re-use rights...* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But all authors already want all non-subscribing users to have immediate free online access; not all or even most or many authors know or care about re-use rights yet...* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But free online access with re-use rights today entails paying publishers even more, over and above uncancellable subscriptions, out of scarce research funds, whereas free online access entails no extra cost...* "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!" *But free online access is better, even if free online access with re-use rights is best...* "I don't want the better: I want the best!" *But the better is already within reach <https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=grasp+OR+libre+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg> and the best is not...* "I don't want the better: I want the best!" *Stevan Harnad* I am starting right now to mine the bioscience literature. BOAI #openaccess > is somewhere around 15-20 percent of currently published bioscience. That > is enormously valuable as it stands. SH may describe my research as > "near-useless" but I can extract high-quality publishable science, and I > intend to publish it if it achieves a useful scientific gain. There are > MANY cases where comprehensiveness is not required. > > Here are some of the things I and colleagues intend to do - they are NOT > "near-useless" > > * compiling a vocabulary. This is of enormous value in nearly every field. > 20% will contain all the commonly used vocabulary. The value of the > long-tail is not critical in most fields > > * building a natural language toolkit. I have done this and it is widely > used . I do not need the whole literature to do this. > > * creating a corpus for the community to use as a reference. This is > extremely useful and has been plagued in the past by rights issues > > * extracting information from diagrams and figures. > > * building reference data. My group has built a system with half the > world's published crystallographic data (200,000 structures) . For many > purposes - docking drugs into enzymes, building nanomaterials , supporting > Quantum mechanics calculations - it's essentially as valuable as the > complete literature. > > * reference data. Enormously valuable. > > It is a great pity that Open Access has become embroiled in personal > crusades rather than constructive discussion and accurate opinions. > > My research on 15-20% of the literature is not "near-useless" and this > will become clear in the next 1-2 months >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
