tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post1689999588034159981..comments2024-03-17T08:30:21.129+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Where are we, what still needs to be done? Stevan Harnad on the state of Open AccessRichard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-51137845911196700842013-07-13T13:29:07.665+00:002013-07-13T13:29:07.665+00:00Ad Anonymous (Publisher, Obviously)
1. Arxiv depo...<b>Ad Anonymous</b> (Publisher, Obviously)<br /><br />1. Arxiv depositors deposit both unrefereed preprints and refereed, revised postprints, and have been doing so all along (since 1991). (Not the publisher's PDF, but who cares?)<br /><br />Authors in other disciplines (varying from 5% to 35%+) do likewise, in their own institutional repositories and websites (Gargouri et al 2012). <br /><br />2. Yes, authors may choose not to comply with publisher OA embargoes or rights restrictions. But if they choose to comply, that's what the immediate-deposit mandates and the eprint-request Button are for.<br /><br />Gargouri, Yassine, Lariviere, Vincent, Gingras, Yves, Carr, Les and Harnad, Stevan (2012) <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/" rel="nofollow">Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, by Discipline</a>. In: <i>17th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators (STI)</i>, 5-8 September, 2012, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Montréal. http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3664<br /><br />Harnad, Stevan (2013) Comments on HEFCE/REF Open Access Mandate Proposal. Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014 http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/349893/<br /><br />Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2012) Open Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing" Button. In: Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online (Rosemary J. Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-66920060494227331282013-07-08T14:48:54.047+00:002013-07-08T14:48:54.047+00:00Anonymous writes:
"It's completely wrong...Anonymous writes:<br /><br />"It's completely wrong equate pre- and post- prints. They often have very different ownership."<br /><br />Only after we give away postprints. That's why it's important to deposit them under a specific irrevocable licence <i>before</i> signing all rights over to the publisher.<br /><br />"2. You can not grant any re-use rights beyond the rights that you have retained."<br /><br />Right. Which is why it's important not to give all your right away to barrier-merchants.<br />Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-14141738526210322312013-07-08T14:25:31.232+00:002013-07-08T14:25:31.232+00:00"(And around 100% of high-energy physicists a..."(And around 100% of high-energy physicists and astrophysicists have been providing immediate Green Gratis OA irrespective of copyright agreements for nearly a quarter century, uncontested.)"<br /><br />High energy physics are rather an outlier here. Plus, the vast majority is pre-print, and NOT updated to even include the publication's citation details, let alone the post-print.<br /><br />It's completely wrong equate pre- and post- prints. They often have very different ownership.<br /><br />http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/files/presentations/2009/Ingoldsby.pdf<br /><br />"retaining both journal choice and the prerogative to comply or not comply with publisher embargoes as well as the prerogative to provide or not provide further re-use rights."<br /><br />1. There is no prerogative here. You might choose to not comply with an embargo, but you do not have any right to do so.<br /><br />2. You can not grant any re-use rights beyond the rights that you have retained.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-83023831852007633692013-07-08T12:01:00.105+00:002013-07-08T12:01:00.105+00:00Immediate-Deposit Mandates
Reply to Anonymous:
1...<b>Immediate-Deposit Mandates</b><br /><br />Reply to Anonymous:<br /><br /><b>1.</b> Yes, anybody can pay APCs for Libre Gold OA. But not everybody has the money, and not everybody wants to spend it on paying to publish, especially while research money is so scarce and so much already has to be spent on paying publishers for subscriptions to Must-Have journals. (Nor do all authors wish to choose a journal for its business model rather than its track-record for peer-review standards.)<br /><br /><b>2.</b> Yes, some copyright agreements are designed to prevent or embargo Green Gratis OA, but all authors can comply with immediate-deposit mandates, at least 60% can provide immediate OA even if they elect to comply with a publisher embargo, and the remaining 40% can provide Almost-OA during any embargo via their institutional repository's email eprint request Button. (And around 100% of high-energy physicists and astrophysicists have been providing immediate Green Gratis OA irrespective of copyright agreements for nearly a quarter century, uncontested.)<br /><br /><b>3.</b> Mandates requiring authors (a) to pay APCs for Gold OA, (b) to give up their freedom to choose journals, or (c) to provide re-use rights they don't want to provide all invite author resistance, as the sorry saga of the Finch/RCUK policy is showing. In contrast, there is no author resistance to cost-free immediate-deposit plus the optional use of the eprint-request Button, while retaining both journal choice and the prerogative to comply or not comply with publisher embargoes as well as the prerogative to provide or not provide further re-use rights. (And this compromise immediate-deposit mandate is also the surest and fastest way to reach 100% Green Gratis OA, which in turn makes possible a transition to Fair-Gold OA and as much Libre OA as authors wish to provide, and users need, instead of double-paying for pre-Green Fool's Gold pre-emptively today.)Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-55465355274752670512013-07-08T10:51:26.668+00:002013-07-08T10:51:26.668+00:00Anonymous says:
"Technically, you can issue ...Anonymous says:<br /><br />"Technically, you can issue any mandate you like. But mandates can not supersede the law - so self-archiving can only exist to the extent that copyright holders are willing to accept, regardless of what mandates may be in place."<br /><br />This is true. But remember that <i>authors</i> are the copyright holders until they gift the copyright to a publisher. So a mandate can certainly say "authors, do not give your copyright to publishers who don't allow immediate CC By-licenced posting on institutional repositories".<br /><br />Under such conditions, publishers would either have to accept donated manuscripts on the funders' prescribed terms; or, in a fit of pique, decline these donations altogether. That outcome would hurt no-one but the publisher in question, who would be getting exactly what they deserve.<br /><br />The bottom line is the funders hold the purse-strings, and therefore the power. I want to see them wielding it more strongly. http://svpow.com/2013/06/19/funders-have-all-the-power-in-oa-negotiations-so-why-arent-they-using-it/Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-10450058772285937922013-07-08T10:40:33.020+00:002013-07-08T10:40:33.020+00:00Stevan Harnad - "Because the fact is that Lib...Stevan Harnad - "Because the fact is that Libre OA is a good deal harder to get than Gratis OA; and that Gratis OA is part of Libre OA. And athat fter 20 years we don't yet have Gratis OA."<br /><br />Hardly. It is easier to get [Libre] OA, than public [free] access - providing you are prepared to pay for it.<br /><br />"Gratis OA can be mandated (by institutions and funders), because all authors want to provide it (even if they daren't do so unless mandated) and all users need it."<br /><br />Technically, you can issue any mandate you like. But mandates can not supersede the law - so self-archiving can only exist to the extent that copyright holders are willing to accept, regardless of what mandates may be in place.<br /><br />"Libre OA cannot be mandated, because not all authors want to provide it; nor do all users need it."<br /><br />Anybody willing to pay the APCs - and certainly any funder willing to pay the APCs can certainly mandate [libre] OA. Whoever is paying for the research has the right to set the terms, including how the outputs should be delivered.<br /><br />It doesn't matter whether all users need open rights. They all benefit from having free, immediate access. And it only takes one person to add value to the content from having open rights, for everyone to benefit - even if they aren't making use of the open rights themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-2188119633664939632013-07-05T03:36:05.744+00:002013-07-05T03:36:05.744+00:00Practical Priorities
(Actually I've been arc...<b> Practical Priorities</b> <br /><br />(Actually I've been archivangelizing for Gratis Green OA (free online access) for over 20 years. But Peter and I go back <a href="http://j.mp/pmRUSToa" rel="nofollow">about 8</a>.)<br /><br />@Peter Murray-Rust: "For me as a practising scientist full rights of re-use are critical. Stevan regards this as marginal and that I should sacrifice this for the greater good of 100% Green OA - and only then should we address rights… I and associates am [sic] aiming to influence others that rights (such as CC-BY/0) really matter." <br /><br />Peter is of course entitled and welcome to try to influence others that Libre OA (i.e., free online access + re-use rights) really matters. But I think he is rather overstating the case when he says "as a practising scientist" that re-use rights are "critical": <br /><br />I don't doubt that in Peter's field (crystallography) they are critical. <br /><br />But in all fields of science and scholarship? <br /><br />And more critical or urgent than online access to research for all users, rather than just subscribers?<br /><br />Because the fact is that Libre OA is a good deal harder to get than Gratis OA; and that Gratis OA is part of Libre OA. And athat fter 20 years we don't yet have Gratis OA.<br /><br />Gratis OA can be mandated (by institutions and funders), because all authors want to provide it (even if they daren't do so unless mandated) and all users need it.<br /><br />Libre OA cannot be mandated, because not all authors want to provide it; nor do all users need it.<br /><br />But since Gratis OA is a necessary component of Libre OA, it is likely that the surest and fastest way to get all the Libre OA that users need and that authors want to provide is by mandating Gratis OA first.<br /><br />Peter is free to find a surer and faster way, if he knows one. I don't.Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-16833759435747759402013-07-04T15:35:25.990+00:002013-07-04T15:35:25.990+00:00"Unknown" in last comment is Peter Murra..."Unknown" in last comment is Peter Murray-Rust - the wordpress login dropped my credentialsPeter Murray-Rustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-35926037587851782582013-07-04T15:19:28.243+00:002013-07-04T15:19:28.243+00:00+1 for @MikeTaylor. In these interviews Richard as...+1 for @MikeTaylor. In these interviews Richard asked for opinions - e.g. "what have been the majr disappointments"? This can only be subjective. <br /><br />Stevan Harnad says "(1) Neither Gold OA nor Libre OA are urgently needed today (the latter perhaps only by a few specialty fields)". For me as a practising scientist full rights of re-use are critical. Stevan regards this as marginal and that I should sacrifice this for the greater good of 100% Green OA - and only then should we address rights.<br /><br />This are sociopolitical views - we differ strongly and absolutely. Stevan has promoted Green-over rights for at least 5 years. I am equally strongly insisting on rights as fundamental. Given Stevan's consistent adherence to his views (after he diverged from full BOAI compliance) I don't expect to convert him - I and associates am aiming to influence others that rights (such as CC-BY/0) really matter.<br /><br />I shall be blogging on Mike's points (which I think are completely compatible with my own views) but which need expanding at http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2013/07/02/mike-taylors-brilliant-analysis-of-openaccess/ and following.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04097697708094731758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-91560099983739449042013-07-02T14:42:35.918+00:002013-07-02T14:42:35.918+00:00Dear anonymous large-publisher employee,
It's...Dear anonymous large-publisher employee,<br /><br />It's strange that you would complain about lack of balance when the two interviews in this series so far seem to disagree on virtually every detail of how to proceed towards OA.<br /><br />Unless by "balance" you mean you want to hear an anti-OA voice. But it would take courage for anyone who was anti-OA to step forward and make his or her opinions public.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-21251820986178840432013-07-02T14:15:05.748+00:002013-07-02T14:15:05.748+00:00I should add that publishers often ask me why most...I should add that publishers often ask me why most of my interviews are with OA advocates and not publishers. The answer is that when I invite publishers to do interviews they are generally reluctant. When they do agree, they usually want to talk about their products, not about the issues, which makes for a far less interesting interview.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-56284484535723889662013-07-02T13:13:45.096+00:002013-07-02T13:13:45.096+00:00Thanks for the comment. I am hoping that I can get...Thanks for the comment. I am hoping that I can get other people with different views to contribute as well, including publishers. <br /><br />As it happens, this anonymous message appears to have been posted by someone who works for a large scholarly publisher. Why not step into the limelight and answer 10 questions yourself? <br /><br />After all, some would argue that a complete picture of the current situation can only be properly arrived at if everyone joins the debate and diversity of opinion is achieved. Let everyone have their own puff piece I say.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-17782026730563596732013-07-02T12:54:42.038+00:002013-07-02T12:54:42.038+00:00This and the Mike Taylor piece yesterday aren'...This and the Mike Taylor piece yesterday aren't 'interviews', they're puff pieces free of the critical analysis of your other (real) interviews. Balance please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com