<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [BOAI] Is a Different OA Strategy Needed for
Social Sc</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The Swiss publisher, Peter Lang, that
publishes BOOKS mainly in the social sciences does NOT allow
books contributors (in case of edited or co-edited volumes) to post
the published versions of book chapters on the author's own repository
or on his/her institutional repository. What the publisher does allow,
though, is to post the TITLE and the ABSTRACT of the book chapter on
one's own repository or on one's institutional repository. The book
title and the publisher's name should of course be
mentioned.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>NB: In the published version of books, abstracts of book chapters
(in case of edited or co-edited books) are NOT published.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I wholly agree with Jean-Claude Guédon when he says that one of
the problem is when one has to cite, especially when one has to use
verbatim quotes of a few words or a whole sentence. In such cases, the
page number must be indicated into brackets. Such quotes are not
frequent in the hard/natural sciences, but they are quite frequent in
the social sciences.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This being said, having access to referred papers is not as
satisfactory as having access to the publisher's version of record,
but it is certainly 1000 times better than no access at all.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Books being a very important means of research result
dissemination in the social sciences and the humanities (the
"dominant symbolic currency", in Jean-Claude Guédon's
parlance), something should be done as well towards OA. The late
linguist Robert de Beaugrande posted all his books OA on his own
repository when he was still alive. He might have reached an agreement
with his publishers. I don't know, but this is what will have to be
done sooner or later for students and researchers in these fields to
have free access to knowledge which is not only to be found in
scientific journals but also in books.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Françoise Salager-Meyer</div>
<div>Researcher in applied Linguistics</div>
<div>Emeritus Professor</div>
<div>University of The Andes. Mérida. Venezuela</div>
<div>*****</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On 2011-11-06, at 1:28 PM, Jean-Claude
Guédon wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote>The primary target information of the OA movement is
refereed research results in whatever form, articles, books, etc. They
are written for research uptake, and even though some research
monographs may entail symbolic royalties, they are not published
for this reason. As a result, they should not be distinguished from
the rest, especially because they constitute the dominant symbolic
currency of the humanities and the social sciences. The OA movement
also deals with the humanities and the social sciences.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
A distinction can and must be made between what authors want to give
away free for all and what they do not want to give away free for
all.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Underlying this is the all-important underlying distinction between
what institutions and funders can mandate (require) to be made OA and
what they cannot.<br>
<br>
Books are always welcome as OA, of course, but only articles can be
mandated to be made OA because they are the only ones that are,
without exception, written by their authors solely for research
uptake, usage and impact, not for royalty revenue.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
It is a great strategic mistake to conflate the exception-free subset
with the exception-ridden supraset,<br>
<br>
<blockquote>The situation is not so rosily green (!!!) in the
humanities and social sciences, and it is far worse in the case of
monographs.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
For monographs, see above.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Among the 60% of all journals that are
already green on immediate green OA self-archiving by their authors,
the only systematic discipline difference I know of for sure is
chemistry, because of the ACS's regressive policy. All the large
international, multidisciplinary green publishers (CUP, Elsevier, John
Wiley, Kluwer, Springer) include social science and humanities (SSH)
journals among their titles.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Is there evidence that among all SSH
journals the proportion of green journals differs significantly from
60%? (This may be true for some national journals and
non-English-language journals; I do not know, although one hears the
reverse: that national and non-English language journals have a
higher, not a lower proportion of gold journals (which are, a
fortiori, also green), and even gold journals that do not charge
pay-to-publish fees.)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In any case, this matter is irrelevant
for mandates, because what can be universally mandated, without
exception, in all fields, is immediate deposit in the author's
institutional repository, whether or not the journal is green (i.e.,
whether or not it endorses making deposits OA immediately, or instead
insists on a Closed Access embargo period of various -- sometimes
infinite -- length).</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In principle, one could also mandate
deposit of all monographs too, allowing the option of Closed Access,
exactly as with non-green journal articles -- and I personally think
this would be a wonderful idea.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>But, practically speaking, considering
all the misunderstandings that abound, slowing the adoption even of
journal-article mandates, I would again recommend accomplishing the
latter first, without inviting trouble and opposition by over-reaching
for books too. (They will all come once we have at long last had the
sense to do the doable, which is to mandate green for all articles,
first.)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote>This is important to avoid discriminating against the
humanities and the social sciences, once again.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
There is no discrimination against SSH! Authors are free to
self-archive their books too. But it is their articles that they
*must* self-archive.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote>[Regarding mandating the deposit of the author's refereed,
corrected, accepted final draft is the refereed journal
article]...<br>
I agree with this, but must point out, once more, that the humanities
and social sciences do not limit themselves to citing articles; they
also quote from these articles, and this requires page numbers. if the
version made accessible in a repository is not paginated in the
same way as the final, publisher's version, it can be read and cited,
but not quoted in the usual manner. This situation creates obstacles
to researchers.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Please, please let us not air this all again! What is at issue is
which version is within immediate reach, with minimal publisher
constraints, and that version is the author's final draft. That is the
one for which deposit can and must be mandated. And that is the one
that means the difference between night and day for those who wish to
access, read, cite *and quote* it, if otherwise their institutions
cannot afford subscription access to the publisher's version of record
at all.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Yes, the absence of the pagination is a
slight scholarly inconvenience. But what is the size of this
inconvenience, compared to no access at all? And the locus of a quoted
passage can be indicated in a perfectly rigorous, effective and
scholarly way by citing the section name and paragraph number in place
of the page number. (It's even more specific!)</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>And what is the point? Since far more
publishers are green on immediate OA for the author's final draft than
for the publisher's paginated version of record, why are we talking
about the need of page numbers to quote from the publisher's version
of record when most institutions have not yet even mandated the
self-archiving the author's final draft?</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Why even mention the unreachable
"more," when we have not even bothered to grasp the vast
benefits of the "less" that is fully within reach?<br>
<blockquote>It is more like the difference between night and early
dawn. The "night and day" result happens when only citing is
needed. In cases where quoting is also needed, it is more difficult to
achieve (hence the dawn, rather the day). In poorer countries, I
suspect it is close to being impossible.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Jean-Claude, I cannot see the point that is being made here. But I
think it has been made, and answered, so many times in this Forum that
there is nothing new to be learned.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Yes, I myself keep repeating the
mandating point too, but that is something that is practically
feasible, and has been for some time. The idea is to get people to at
least do that, at long last, rather than to continue dwelling on how
it falls short of the ideal...</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote>I agree with all of this, but I must point out that in
some countries, including the US, the "email eprint request"
must be designed very carefully so as not to run afoul of copyright
legislation. An automatic sending of the article by
the repository simultaneously with the sending of the email
request to the author, even though the author may have given a blanket
release on his article, may be assimilated to illegal publishing in
some jurisdictions, especially if the author has signer all of
her rights away to a publisher. The best way is to have a letter go to
the author and have the author send directly the article to the person
requesting. This will protect the repository from possible
litigations.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The latter, not the former, is precisely
how the Button works. The IR does not send out copies automatically.
What it does is relay eprint requests from would-be users (paste
name and email in a box and click once) to the author, who
receives an email requesting the eprint and can authorize the emailing
with one click.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E.,
Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2012) <a
href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/">Open Access Mandates and
the "Fair Dealing" Button</a>. In: <i>Dynamic Fair
Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online</i> (Rosemary J. Coombe
& Darren Wershler, Eds.) <a
href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/"
>http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>ABSTRACT:</b> We describe the
"Fair Dealing Button," a feature designed for authors who
have deposited their papers in an Open Access Institutional Repository
but have deposited them as "Closed Access" (meaning only the
metadata are visible and retrievable, not the full eprint) rather than
Open Access. The Button allows individual users to request and authors
to provide a single eprint via semi-automated email. The purpose of
the Button is to tide over research usage needs during any publisher
embargo on Open Access and, more importantly, to make it possible for
institutions to adopt the "Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access"
Mandate, without exceptions or opt-outs, instead of a mandate that
allows delayed deposit or deposit waivers, depending on publisher
permissions or embargoes (or no mandate at all). This is only
"Almost-Open Access," but in facilitating exception-free
immediate-deposit mandates it will accelerate the advent of universal
Open Access.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Amitiés,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Stevan</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
-- <br>
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:<br>
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>