tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post5982419393433755267..comments2024-03-17T08:30:21.129+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster, Coordinator of Scholarly Communications, University of Nebraska-LincolnRichard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-84923078977581567812014-09-15T13:45:44.718+00:002014-09-15T13:45:44.718+00:00For some commentary on, and criticism of, this int...For some commentary on, and criticism of, this introduction and Q&A see <a href="http://friendfeed.com/lsw/83392e1a/depositing-articles-into-institutional" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-64301618802275358262014-09-15T13:42:28.562+00:002014-09-15T13:42:28.562+00:00To add to the confusion over what exactly open acc...To add to the confusion over what exactly open access is, consider also the use of the term "public access" -- see, for instance, the discussion <a href="https://www.facebook.com/richard.poynder/posts/10152718553268281" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-90605497004488136502014-09-02T16:11:13.091+00:002014-09-02T16:11:13.091+00:00What OA Needs Is More Action, Not More Definition
...<b>What OA Needs Is More Action, Not More Definition</b><br /><br />For the record: I renounce (and have long renounced) the <a href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read" rel="nofollow">original 2002 BOAI (and BBB) definition of Open Access</a> (OA) (even though I was one of the original co-drafters and co-signers of BOAI) in favour of its <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html" rel="nofollow">2008 revision <em>(sic)</em> as Gratis OA (free online access) and Libre OA</a> (free online access plus certain re-use rights, e.g., CC-BY). <br /><br />The original BOAI definition was improvised. Over a decade of subsequent evidence, experience and reflection have now made it clear that the first approximation in 2002 was needlessly over-reaching and (insofar as Green OA self-archiving was concerned) incoherent (except if we were prepared to declare almost all Green OA — which was and still is by far the largest and most reachable body of OA — as not being OA!). The original BOAI/BBB definition has since also become an obstacle to the growth of (Green, Gratis) OA as well as a point of counterproductive schism and formalism in the OA movement that have not been to the benefit of OA (but to the benefit of the opponents of OA, or to the publishers that want to ensure -- via Green OA embargoes -- that the only path to OA should be one that preserves their current revenue streams: <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?tbm=blg&gws_rd=ssl#q=harnad+fool's+gold+&tbm=blg" rel="nofollow">Fool's Gold OA</a>).<br /><br />I would like to agree with Richard Poynder that OA needs some sort of "authoritative" organization -- but of whom should that authoritative organization consist? My inclination is that it should be the providers and users of the OA research itself, namely peer-reviewed journal article authors, their institutions and their funders. Their “definition” of OA would certainly be authoritative.<br /><br />Let me close by emphasizing that I too see Libre OA as desirable and inevitable. But my belief (and it has plenty of supporting evidence) is that the only way to get to Libre OA is for all institutions and funders to mandate (and provide) Gratis Green OA first — not to quibble or squabble about the BOAI/BBB “definition” of OA, or their favorite flavours of Libre OA licenses.<br /><br />My only difference with Paul Royster is that the primary target for OA is peer-reviewed journal articles, and for that it is not just repositories that are needed, but Green OA mandates from authors’ institutions and funders.<br /><br /><strong>PS: </strong>To forestall yet another round of definitional wrangling: Even an effective Gratis Green OA mandate requires some compromises, namely, if authors elect to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, they need merely deposit the final, refereed, revised draft in their institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication -- and set the access as "restricted access" instead of OA during the (allowable) embargo. The repository's <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?tbm=blg&gws_rd=ssl#q=harnad+Button&tbm=blg" rel="nofollow">automated email copy-request Button</a> will allow any user to request and an any author to provide a single copy for research purposes during the embargo. (We call this compromise "Almost-OA." It is a workaround for the 40% of journals that embargo Gratis Green OA; and this too is a necessary first step on the road to 100% immediate Green Gratis OA and onward. I hope no one will now call for a formal definition of "Almost-OA" before we can take action on mandating OA...)Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-79868846311839276892014-09-01T21:41:40.658+00:002014-09-01T21:41:40.658+00:00I have worked for, and with, some of the key organ...I have worked for, and with, some of the key organisations developing open access approaches. Though I've not been directly involved for some time I've watched with growing concern.<br />I didn't agree with the RCUK requirement for CC BY. I think CC BY NC would be better protection from potentially parasitic publishers. I think CC BY NC ND would better protect the more cautious from use of scholarly resources by people not familiar with acceptable use of research papers, while still enabling copying, translation and accessible versions. I think there are other ways to enable textmining, as creative commons has said, and as updated copyright law in UK now allows.<br />So I am inclined to agree that this is all becoming skewed towards publishers needs and could turn many academics against what should be in their best interests: the greater dissemination of their scholarship.amberthomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00029801068302721012noreply@blogger.com