When I want to drive on a public road, whether it is closed or temporarily closed makes no difference to me. It is not open. I can't use it. Embargo is antinomic to open.
Bernard Rentier > Le 1 juin 2015 à 18:26, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen <[email protected]> wrote: >> There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals >> and definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how >> many times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make >> articles freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The >> belief that the NIH provides open access with its public access policy >> provides real drag on the quest to provide actual open access. You can argue >> about whether or not the policy is a good thing because it's a step in the >> right direction, or a bad thing because it reifies delayed access. But >> calling what the provide "open access" serves only to confuse people, to >> weaken our objectives and give the still far more powerful forces who do not >> want open access a way to resist pressure for it. > > It's nice to be able to agree with Mike Eisen. > > Open Access (OA) comes in two degrees: Gratis OA is immediate, permanent free > online access and Libre OA is Gratis OA plus various re-use rights (up to > CC-BY or even public domain). > > What both degrees of OA share is that they are both immediate (and permanent). > > Otherwise, there's just Delayed (Embargoed) Access, which is no more "Open > Access" than Toll Access is. > > To treat Delayed Access as if it were a form of Open Access would be to > reduce OA to meaninglessness (and would play into the hands of publishers who > would like to see precisely that happen). > > Stevan Harnad >> >>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> hi David, >>> >>> Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are >>> moving towards open access in slightly different ways are two different >>> things. My post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and >>> welcoming approach to open access. >>> >>> For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with >>> editors of small journals that either are, or would like to be, open >>> access. Behind the more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are >>> probably much more than 10 thousand such editors, working hard to convince >>> colleagues to move to open access, struggling to figure out how to do this >>> in order to make ends meet. While some of us have been active and vocal in >>> OA discussions and policy formulation, others have been quietly doing this >>> work, often contributing a great deal of volunteer effort, over the years. >>> We rarely hear from these people, but actively listening and figuring out >>> how to provide the support needed for the journals to thrive in an OA >>> environment is in the best interests of continuing towards a fully open >>> access and sustainable system. These people are OA heroes from my >>> perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or not. In my >>> experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a year and >>> they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is needed >>> to move to OA results in productive discussions. >>> >>> OpenDOAR maintains a list of over 2,600 vetted open access archives: >>> http://opendoar.org/ >>> >>> OA archives have made a very great deal of work open access - so much so >>> that counting it all is very hard! The thesis, for example, was until >>> recently available in perhaps 1 or 2 print copies (that libraries were >>> reluctant to lend as they were not replaceable) and microfilm. Today we are >>> well on our way to open and online by default for the thesis. arXiv in >>> effect flipped high energy physics to full preprint OA close to two decades >>> ago. PubMed was an early OA success story making the Medline index >>> available for free. In the 1990's I remember how big a deal it was for a >>> small Canadian university college to buy access to Medline, and even then >>> having access restricted to senior students in biology. Today it's free for >>> everyone with internet access. So is Medline Plus, which provides high >>> quality free consumer health information. PubMedCentral both makes the >>> medical literature available and ensures that it is preserved, working with >>> both authors and journals to make this happen. By my calculations, 30% of >>> the literature indexed in PubMed is freely available through PubMed 2 years >>> after publication (all literature, no restrictions based on funder policy); >>> 32% after 3 years. For the data, see the Dramatic Growth of Open Dataverse >>> http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/dgoa download the latest >>> spreadsheet and go to the PMC Free tab. >>> >>> These archives have happened because librarians and others have fought for >>> the resources to develop the archives, often the policies (there are a >>> great many more thesis deposit policies than are listed in ROARMAP), and >>> educating anyone who would listen about OA. Many smart people worked on the >>> concept and technology, and many if by no means all authors have taken the >>> time to deposit their works. >>> >>> In the early years, the OA movement really was small, and it is a good >>> thing that some of us stepped up to defend OA against attacks. Today I >>> think we should ask ourselves whether this defensiveness has become a >>> habit. Are we starting to snap at OA friends as much as OA detractors? Are >>> we over-reacting? The Elsevier archiving policy change is unfortunate, a >>> step in the wrong direction, and fully merits critique. But this is not the >>> same level of wrongfulness as Elsevier's lobbying for the Research Works >>> Act a few years ago, which would have prevented the US from enacting public >>> access legislation. >>> >>> respectfully, >>> >>> Heather >>> >>> On 2015-06-01, at 5:09 AM, David Prosser wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > Ever since ‘Open Access’ was first defined there have been people who >>> > have wanted to redefine it. Heather is the latest of these. The trouble >>> > is, by broadening the definition of ‘Open Access’ it is in danger of >>> > becoming meaningless. >>> > >>> > So, Heather wants to include journals who make their content freely >>> > available after one or two years. I certainly agree that free access >>> > after two years is better than no free access after two years, but where >>> > do we draw the line - is a five year embargo ‘Open Access'? Ten? Fifty? >>> > And Heather has warned us of the hypothetical dangers of CC-BY papers >>> > being re-enclosed, but wants us to consider entire archives where free >>> > access can be turned off at the flick of a switch at the whim of the >>> > publisher as being open access! >>> > >>> > I’m all for celebrating free archives, and if somebody wants to compile a >>> > list then that would be great - but let’s not call it ‘Open Access’. The >>> > trouble with all the attempts to redefine ‘Open Access’ is that nobody >>> > has come up with a definition that improves on that of the Budapest Open >>> > Access Initiative of 2002. >>> > >>> > Heather’s final paragraph is frankly baffling. I know of nobody who >>> > feels that 'the OA movement consists of the small group of people who >>> > have been to meetings in Budapest’. What I do know is that many of those >>> > who attended the first meeting in 2002 where the definition of Open >>> > Access was thrashed out have spend a huge amount of their time over the >>> > past 13 years travelling the world promoting open access. Often, >>> > especially in the early years, to audiences that were in single-figures >>> > and/or overtly hostile. The fact that there is an OA movement today is, >>> > in great part, thanks to the inspiring efforts of those early pioneers >>> > (together with others). They have advocated for repositories, for >>> > mandates, for open source software to allow cheaper journal publishing, >>> > for more liberal licensing, etc., etc. Denigrating them by implication >>> > is quite ridiculous revisionism. (And for full disclosure, I attended >>> > the 10th anniversary meeting in Budapest, where we were able to celebrate >>> > a vibrant, international OA movement.) >>> > >>> > David >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 30 May 2015, at 20:03, Heather Morrison <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> What if, instead of condemning the many people who are doing their best >>> >> to provide the most open access they feel they can, the OA movement were >>> >> to be more inclusive? For example, DOAJ excludes journals that make >>> >> their work freely available after one or two years' embargo. I realize >>> >> and agree that we want immediate OA, but the vast majority of such >>> >> journals are published by people who are completely in favour of open >>> >> access but just haven't figured out how to make the economics work for >>> >> them. >>> >> >>> >> The opposite of open access is closed access. The Big Chill report on >>> >> the silencing of federal scientists in Canada is a good illustration. >>> >> Excerpt: "the survey [of Canadian federal scientists] ...found that >>> >> nearly one-quarter (24%) of respondents had been directly asked to >>> >> exclude or alter information for non-scientific reasons and that over >>> >> one-third (37%) had been prevented in the past five years from >>> >> responding to questions from the public and media" from: >>> >> http://www.pipsc.ca/portal/page/portal/website/issues/science/bigchill >>> >> >>> >> I understand that the U.S. has had similar problems with political >>> >> interference with science, e.g. states such as Florida having >>> >> legislature forbidding reference to climate change (example here: >>> >> http://fcir.org/2015/03/08/in-florida-officials-ban-term-climate-change/) >>> >> >>> >> Even without any political interference, works under toll access can be >>> >> locked down for the full term of copyright. In the U.S. that's life of >>> >> the author plus 70 years. If a work is written 30 years before an author >>> >> dies, that's a century. The great many works freely available within a >>> >> year or a few of publication should be understood as a huge success, not >>> >> a failure. >>> >> >>> >> If the OA movement consists of the small group of people who have been >>> >> to meetings in Budapest [sometimes people on this list talk as if this >>> >> were the case], that's a small movement indeed and not likely to grow >>> >> very much. On the other hand, if the OA movement is seen as the millions >>> >> of authors who have provided free access to their own work (however they >>> >> did this), the thousands of journals providing free access (whether we >>> >> think they are perfect in this or not), the thousands of repositories - >>> >> that's a huge global movement, one that we can build upon to continue >>> >> and grow the momentum to date. >>> >> >>> >> best, >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Dr. Heather Morrison >>> >> Assistant Professor >>> >> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies >>> >> University of Ottawa >>> >> http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html >>> >> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> GOAL mailing list >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > GOAL mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GOAL mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Eisen, Ph.D. >> Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute >> Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development >> Department of Molecular and Cell Biology >> University of California, Berkeley >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
