<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17104" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=953473615-06112011><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Is there a difference between 'access to information 'and
'access to the publishers copy'?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=953473615-06112011><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=953473615-06112011></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> boai-forum-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk
[mailto:boai-forum-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Tevni
Grajales<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 06, 2011 7:39 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
<boai-forum@ecs.soton.ac.uk><BR><B>Cc:</B> American Scientist Open Access
Forum; BOAI Forum<BR><B>Subject:</B> [BOAI] Re: The affordability problem vs.
the accessibility problem<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>YES! We who signed this movement at the beginning were talking about free
access to information and knowledge in the spirit of something like "OWS".
However, it seems to me that we are moving to "business as usual". Knowledge
capitalism for greedy. Sorry, I am "indignado" again. <BR><BR>Sent from my
iPod</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Nov 6, 2011, at 4:29 AM, "Stevan Harnad" <<A
href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Bernard Lang <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:Bernard.Lang@inria.fr"></A><A
href="mailto:Bernard.Lang@inria.fr">Bernard.Lang@inria.fr</A>></SPAN>
wrote:
<DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Everything
is very simple when you think only in terms of being able<BR>to access a
copy of the work and read it. Either you can or you can't.<BR>It is either
self archived or it is the publisher's copy.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It's not so simple for the 80% of yearly journal articles that are
neither self-archived nor published in an OA journal -- for all the would-be
users who cannot afford subscription access to the publisher's copy.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>And that is what OA is about, and for, first and foremost. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">But
a contract that allows you to read an article may wall<BR>prohibit
mechanical uses of some forms.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>That may be, but the pressing (and completely solvable) problem today is
not other forms of use: it is access (to read).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>And the solution is for all institutions and funders to mandate
self-archiving ("green OA").</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">So
the issue is not just access to works by individual<BR>scientists, but what
can be done with the works in a very general<BR>sense, and by whom, through
what tools. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The pressing issue today is access; uses beyond that are secondary at a
time when universal access is fully reachable, but not yet being reached
for.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Other issues (libre OA, copyright reform, publishing reform) can be
addressed later: What is needed now is gratis green OA, and the way to get
that is to mandate self-archiving.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">There
is a lot more at stakes than just casual access, and the devil<BR>is in the
details of the contracts, whether green, gold, or any other<BR>color.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>No, the devil is most definitely not in the details of contracts; it is
in the paralysis of researchers' fingers that are not self-archiving. And the
saviour is self-archiving mandates. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>(To be angels, all publishers need do is to endorse OA self-archiving of
their authors' refereed final drafts immediately upon publication, as
over 60% of journals, including most of the top journals, already do. But even
publisher endorsement is not necessary for mandating self-archiving: Mandating
immediate deposit, even if access is embargoed, is infinitely better than not
mandating it -- and it is the surest way to hasten the well-deserved deaths of
the remaining 40% of OA embargoes.) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">So
my question is whether there is in-depth analysis of
open-access<BR>contracts signed by authors, and their implications for the
future,<BR>given that many such contracts will last for 70 years after
the<BR>author's death, that is essentially for ever.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Yes, there is plenty of preoccupation with that issue. And it is a
distraction and a waste of precious time (and access and impact) until and
unless self-archiving is first mandated.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">A
related question is whether there is somewhere a repository of<BR>contracts
used by the 23000 academic publications (from memory, I read<BR>that figure
in a report), whether run privately, by academia or by<BR>learned
organizations.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>SHERPA/ROMEO comes close. But the only aspect of current publisher policy
that is relevant is whether or not they endorse immediate, unembargoed OA
self-archiving (those are the "green" publishers -- though not in
SHERPA/ROMEO's silly color code, where they are either green or
blue...). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The rest is all beside the point -- until immediate deposit has been
mandated.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Although
books are not generally concerned by OA, it might be<BR>interesting to know
the general access constraints for their digital<BR>form. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Another time- and access- and impact-wasting distraction. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>For refereed journal articles, every single one of them is written purely
for research uptake and impact, not for author royalties from sales. Not so
for books.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>So don't conflate the simple, exception-free, open-and-shut case of
journal article OA with the complicated, exception-ridden, and not at all
straightforward case of books (or music or films or software).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Solve the immediately soluble problem first: Grasp what's already within
reach before straining to try to reach what is not not yet within reach.
(Green OA self-archiving will only help these further goals; over-reaching
instead yields nothing at all.)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Stevan Harnad </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN><BR><SPAN>--
</SPAN><BR><SPAN>To unsubscribe from the BOAI
Forum, use the form on this page:</SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f">http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f</A></SPAN><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>