[BOAI] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster, Coordinator of Scholarly Communications, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Philip Hunter wrote:


Stevan,
> You said:
>
>> "*I think it is clear what the research community wants and needs, and
>> has  been clear all along: access to (refereed) research journal articles
>> (and not just for those at subscribing institutions*)."
>
>
> So nothing has changed since 1999?


Not much. Gratis OA is at about 30%


Plenty of powerful new possibilities have opened up — since 1999 and even
before.


What has not opened up — from 1999 to the present day — is access to (most)
refereed research articles: That is the only target content I am concerned
with— and it also is and was the primary target content of the Budapest
Open Access Initiative.


For all the powerful new possibilities for re-use of refereed research
articles (Libre OA) presuppose (at least) free online access (Gratis OA).
That is what we do not yet have.

I'm with Jan Velterop on this one. Ultimately the idea of open access is
> about the value of scientific and humanities literature, and how we might
> use it.


Can’t use it if you can’t access it.


The definition of the  phrase 'digital library' means something quite
> different to a specialist  in informatics, and it is their perspective
> which  represents the way forward.


The Poynder/Royster interview was not about the "digital library," nor
about informatics. It was about providing open access to peer-reviewed
journal articles.


You did not take on board the suggestion of taking a normative approach to
> open access questions.


I'm inclined to take a practical interest in OA: Not how do we define it
but how do we provide it -- starting with Gratis OA.


The current difficulties arise in part from the involvement in the
> discussion of special interest groups, whose principal  aims are best
> served (they think) by the retention of as much as possible of the way
> things used to be done. The wrangling over definitions has been  about
> accommodating their interests, not about promoting open access.


Agreed. There are three interests: (1) All access-denied researchers (they
want (Gratis OA). (2) Some researchers in some research areas: they want
open access plus certain re-use rights (Libre OA). (3) Some publishers, who
only want to allow OA if it preserves their current revenue levels.


My concern is with taking care of (1) first and foremost (and at long last)
through Gratis Green OA mandates from researchers' institutions and funders.


And the definitional wrangling is about prematurely raising the goalpost to
Libre OA when we have not yet managed to provide Gratis OA.

Stevan Harnad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20140904/51f2e89f/attachment.html