Nobody is insisting on perfect *solutions* - none of the current solutions are even close to perfect - but what Heather was proposing was a change in *goals*. There is nothing to be gained - and a lot to lose - by redefining what we mean by open access (and thereby what we are trying to achieve) in order to wrap its umbrella around every imperfect effort to achieve it.
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Dana Roth <dzr...@library.caltech.edu> wrote: > Taking Bernard's 'public road' analogy a little further ... one wonders > his insistence on a 'perfect' solution isn't unfairly denigrating a > reasonable (at least in the short term) alternative. > > The current situation, where the 'public NIH road' is closed temporarily > (12 months) and one has to use a 'toll road' to access embargoed articles, > seems much better than the situation before the creation of PubMed Central > ... which now has 3.5 million freely available full text articles. > > Dana L. Roth > Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 > 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 > 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 > dzr...@library.caltech.edu > http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm > ------------------------------ > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of > brent...@ulg.ac.be [brent...@ulg.ac.be] > *Sent:* Monday, June 01, 2015 11:02 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive > > 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 <amscifo...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen <mbei...@gmail.com> > 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 > <http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/gratis-and-libre-open-access>: *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) <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html>. > > 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 < >> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> 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 < >>> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> 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/ >>> >> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> GOAL mailing list >>> >> GOAL@eprints.org >>> >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > GOAL mailing list >>> > GOAL@eprints.org >>> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GOAL mailing list >>> GOAL@eprints.org >>> 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 >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > 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 GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
