On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
The definition of Open Access in the BOAI:
By open access to this literature, we mean its free availability on the
public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute,
print, search, or link to the
On 2012-05-09, at 7:34 AM, Andras Holl wrote:
The thing whether Open Access relates to an individual article
or a whole journal is not clear.
Individual article (and author)
Does libre OA mean that anyone
is free to redistribute the whole journal, or only one, a few article?
There can
The real issue is to do with usage rights. Can any article that is presented as
being OA just be read with human eyes, or also be re-used and used for
text-mining? The answer in my view should be 'yes', re-use and text-mining,
too, whether the article is in a repository, a personal web site, or
Jan:
Not all articles in the Biomed Central journals are open access; some require a
subscription.
An example is BMC's Genome Biology http://genomebiology.com/content/13/4
which is a hybrid journal with both toll access and open access articles.
Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian /
Jeffrey,
All research articles in BMC journals are OA, BOAI-compliant CC-BY. A few
journals (six of them, to be precise, http://arthritis-research.com/ ,
http://breast-cancer-research.com/, http://ccforum.com/
,http://genomebiology.com/ , http://genomemedicine.com/ , and
On Wed, 9 May 2012, Jan Velterop wrote:
The real issue is to do with usage rights.
Usage rights are moot if you don't have access.
There may be technical issues to overcome, but there
is scant reason to overcome those for so-called OA
articles if text-mining is not allowed.
Perhaps the
In the BOAI, the content to which OA should apply is described as follows:
The literature that should be freely accessible online is that which scholars
give to the world without expectation of payment. Primarily, this category
encompasses their peer-reviewed journal articles, but it also
Jan Velterop wrote:
there is scant reason to overcome those [technical difficulties] for
so-called OA articles if text-mining is not allowed.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen anyone make on
this list. The vast majority of scholars and scientists want and need to
Jan Velterop wrote:
The trouble with focussing on 'green', rather than on full
BOAI-compliant OA for research literature, is that it has become an a
priori concession and an end in itself. That only confuses matters (as
do ill-defined labels such as 'gratis' and 'libre').?
We should insist
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com
wrote:
JV So by all means, let legal measures play a role, but not at the
expense of lowering the bar to 'gratis' OA. If one
On 9 May 2012, at 00:53, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
Jan Velterop wrote:
The trouble with focussing on 'green', rather than on full
BOAI-compliant OA for research literature, is that it has become an a
priori concession and an end in itself. That only confuses matters (as
do ill-defined labels
We're clearly talking cross-purposes here. There is nothing wrong with the
mechanism to get to OA, but there is no need to weaken OA as defined in the
BOAI to just 'gratis' OA, which implies that re-use is not allowed and enabled.
If 'gratis' isn't a weakening of BOAI-compliant OA, why
Aye, there's the rub. Open just means open - in my opinion it is futile (and
unnecessary)Â to insist on a strict definition
Â
The main objective is that anyone who wishes to should be able to read the
item. All the rest, IMHO, is extra
Â
Â
Sally
Â
Sally Morris
South House, The Street,
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
wrote:
Aye, there's the rub. Open just means open - in my opinion it is futile
(and unnecessary)Â to insist on a strict definition
Â
The problem with being woolly is that it doesn't help when you are taken to
court
** Cross-Posted **
On 2012-05-09, at 4:12 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
I would favour doing away with both the terms 'libre OA' and 'gratis
OA'.
Open Access suffices. It's the 'open' that says it all. Especially
if it is made
clear that OA means BOAI-compliant OA in
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
** Cross-Posted **
For Peter Murray-Rust's crusade for journal article text-mining rights,
apart from reiterating my full agreement that these are highly important
and highly desirable and even urgent in certain
The definition of Open Access in the BOAI:
By open access to this literature, we mean its free availability
on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download,
copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these
articles, crawl them for indexing,
Just a quick reminder to the list that the best way of having a productive
discussion is for those taking part to bear in mind the phrase: âPlay the
ball,
not the manâ.
Â
Richard Poynder
GOAL Moderator
Â
Â
Â
[ Part 2: Attached Text ]
Dear All,
The thing whether Open Access relates to an individual article
or a whole journal is not clear. Does libre OA mean that anyone
is free to redistribute the whole journal, or only one, a few article?
Text mining rights are meaningful only for the whole journal.
My opinion that they should
No, mandated Green Gratis OA cannot be prevented or rescinded by publishers
(and publishers are well aware of that -- it is researchers who are
naive about it).
On the contrary, the more OA we have, the harder it is to retard or resist it:
the change is optimal, self-reinforcing, and
On 2012-05-09, at 7:39 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
The definition of Open Access in the BOAI:
By open access to this literature, we mean its free
availability on the public internet, permitting any users to
read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to
the
On 2012-05-09, at 7:34 AM, Andras Holl wrote:
The thing whether Open Access relates to an individual article
or a whole journal is not clear.
Individual article (and author)
Does libre OA mean that anyone
is free to redistribute the whole journal, or only one, a few
On 2012-05-09, at 8:02 AM, David Prosser wrote:
Over-reaching, and carping about definitions and ideals,
and
especially preaching that continuing no-OA is preferable
to low-bar-OA
is just what is keeping us treading water year upon
Jan:
Â
Not all articles in the Biomed Central journals are open access; some require a
subscription.
Â
An example is BMC's Genome Biology http://genomebiology.com/content/13/4
which is a hybrid journal with both toll access and open access articles. Â
Â
Â
Jeffrey Beall, Metadata
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
The real issue is to do with usage rights. Can any article that is
presented as being OA just be read with human eyes, or also be
re-used and used for text-mining? The answer in my view should be
What we may be seeing here is a dichotomy between researchers that can afford
to read much of what they have to take in, simply because there isn't an
enormous 'overwhelm' of papers in their field, and those who cannot possibly
read everything they ought to take in, because they are constantly
No, the need for access is not a dichotomy between those who can afford to
access all articles they need and those who cannot afford the time to read
everything:
The need for access is for those who cannot afford to access all articles
they need.
That's the (currently unfilled) need that Green
27 matches
Mail list logo
