[BOAI] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Clarification of the new OA policy from the RCUK

[Tomasz Neugebauer]

I have always thought that using text-minability and thus the potential development of web AI technologies as an argument for the benefits of open access was not appropriate.  For many researchers, it is not an effective/convincing argument simply because the assumed benefits of this automation are too speculative.

The following exchange demonstrates the confusion w.r.t. the purpose of open access:

Mark Thorley argues as follows:
"We not only want research papers to be ‘free to read’ but also to be ‘free to exploit’ – not only for text and data mining to advance scholarship… but also to drive innovation in the scholarly communications market itself."

Stevan Harnad responds:

"All OA advocates are in favour of text-minability, innovation potential, and as much CC-BY as each author needs and wants for their research output, over and above free online access to all research output -- but certainly not just for *some* research output, and certainly not at the expense (in both senses) of free online access to *all* research output "

I submit that part of the problem here is that not all researchers are in fact concerned with what is implied in "text-minability, innovation potential", whereas many OA advocates have indeed implied that this is a key purpose of OA.

The assumed purpose of a systemic change drives policy.  I think that it was always a mistake to confuse the purpose of open access with text-minability and progress in the development of the semantic web.   The purpose of the open access movement is to increase the access for *people* to the published results of research.  I think that many OA advocates made the mistake to try to "market" OA as a stepping stone towards artificial intelligence on the web, and this was a mistake that has now found its way to RCUK policy.  The benefits of text mining are much too speculative compared to the very tangible and fundamenetal benefits of people having free access to the published results of publicly funded research.

Tomasz Neugebauer

________________________________
From: Stevan Harnad [amsciforum at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:24 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Cc: BOAI Forum; SPARC Open Access Forum
Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Clarification of the new OA policy from the RCUK

Mark Thorley's response is very disappointing:

-- MT: "the ‘corrections’ [Harnad] proposes would dilute our policy so that it was no longer able to deliver the level of open access which the Research Councils require."
http://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk/2012/08/10/the-benefits-of-open-access/#comment-81

The proposed corrections very explicitly *include* a correction to "the level of open access the Research Councils require."

To reply that this "level" is incorrigible and nonnegotiable is tantamount to saying our minds are made up, don't trouble us with further information.

The points requiring correction are very specifically those concerning the "level of open access" (Gratis or Libre; immediate or embargoed) that is actually needed by UK researchers today, and at what price, both in terms of price paid, out of scarce research funds, and, far more important, in terms of Green OA lost, in the UK as well as in the rest of the world (to whose research, RCUK needs to remind itself, UK researchers require open access too).

These matters are not resolved by asserting that Finch/RCUK has already made up its mind a-priori about the level of OA required.

-- MT: "We not only want research papers to be ‘free to read’ but also to be ‘free to exploit’ – not only for text and data mining to advance scholarship… but also to drive innovation in the scholarly communications market itself."

All OA advocates are in favour of text-minability, innovation potential, and as much CC-BY as each author needs and wants for their research output, over and above free online access to all research output -- but certainly not just for *some* research output, and certainly not at the expense (in both senses) of free online access to *all* research output (of which the UK only produces 6%). Yet it is precisely for the latter that Finch/RCUK are insisting upon restrictions and pre-emptive payment -- for UK research output, both at the local UK tax-payer's expense, and at the expense of global Green OA.

The RCUK/Finch policy provides a huge incentive to subscription publishers to offer paid hybrid Gold while at the same time increasing their Green embargoes to make cost-free Green an impermissible option for UK authors. This not only deprives UK authors of the cost-free Green option, but it deprives the rest of the world as well.

(I don't doubt that some of the members of the Finch committee may even have thought of this as a good thing: a way to induce the rest of the world to follow the UK model, whether or not they can afford it, or wish to. But is this not something that may require some further thought?)

-- MT: "And, we are very clear that those who read research papers come from a much wider base than the research community that Harnad considers will be satisfied through the use of repositories and green OA. Therefore, there are no plans to revise the RCUK policy, just to satisfy the interests of one particular sector of the OA community."

It seems to me Mark has it exactly backwards. The "wider base," in all scientific and scholarly research fields, worldwide, wants and needs free online access, now, and urgently, to all research, in all fields (not just UK research output). It is only in a few particular subfields that there is an immediate and urgent need for further re-use rights (and even there, not just for UK's 6%).

How urgent is text-mining of the UK's 6% of world research output and CC-BY, compared to free online access to all of the world's research output?

And what are these urgent text-mining and other Libre OA functions? All authors need and want their work to be accessible to all its intended users, but how many authors need, want or even know about Libre OA, or CC-BY?

And, Mark, can you elaborate rather specifically on the urgent "innovation market potential" that will resonate with all or most researchers as a rationale for constraining their journal choice, diminishing their research funds, and possibly having to find other funds in order to publish at all, today, when they do not even have free online access to the research output of the 94% of the world not bound by the RCUK policy?

Stevan Harnad

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to sparc-oaforum at arl.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20120824/a4a23b42/attachment-0001.html