<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Sprechblasentext Zchn";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.SprechblasentextZchn
{mso-style-name:"Sprechblasentext Zchn";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:Sprechblasentext;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:667445357;
mso-list-template-ids:-598695524;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=DE link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Dear Tomasz,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>your understanding of OA is not in line with the Berlin Declaration:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a name=oadefinition><span lang=EN-US>Open access contributions must satisfy two conditions:</span></a><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p><ol start=1 type=1><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span lang=EN-US>The author(s) and right holder(s) of such contributions grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship (community standards, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now), as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ol><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Also, this conversation is about the Government / RUCK OA policy in UK, especially about the payment of OA fees.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>One may have to accept limited degrees of access when following the green road.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Funders have to define clearly what they are willing to spend money for when talking about the golden road.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>From my perspective the goal is to make OA gold publications freely available for all legitimate uses with a one-off payment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This would certainly include data mining.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Christoph<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>Von:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Tomasz Neugebauer [mailto:Tomasz.Neugebauer@concordia.ca] <br><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 24. August 2012 23:43<br><b>An:</b> Stevan Harnad; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Cc:</b> BOAI Forum; SPARC Open Access Forum<br><b>Betreff:</b> RE: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Clarification of the new OA policy from the RCUK<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'><br>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. <br><br>The following exchange demonstrates the confusion w.r.t. the purpose of open access:<br><br>Mark Thorley argues as follows:<br>"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."<br><br>Stevan Harnad responds:<br><br>"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 "<br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br>Tomasz Neugebauer<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='color:black'><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center></span></div><div id=divRpF538747><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black'> Stevan Harnad [amsciforum@gmail.com]<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:24 AM<br><b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Cc:</b> BOAI Forum; SPARC Open Access Forum<br><b>Subject:</b> [sparc-oaforum] Re: Clarification of the new OA policy from the RCUK</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Mark Thorley's response is very disappointing:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>-- 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." <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><a href="http://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk/2012/08/10/the-benefits-of-open-access/#comment-81" target="_blank">http://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk/2012/08/10/the-benefits-of-open-access/#comment-81</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>The proposed corrections very explicitly *include* a correction to "the level of open access the Research Councils require."<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>These matters are not resolved by asserting that Finch/RCUK has already made up its mind a-priori about the level of OA required.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>-- 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."<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>(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?)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>-- 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."<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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%).<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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? <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>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?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>Stevan Harnad<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:black'>-- <br>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google<br>Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.<br>To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:sparc-oaforum@arl.org">sparc-oaforum@arl.org</a><br>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to<br><a href="mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe@arl.org">sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe@arl.org</a><br>For more options, visit this group at<br><a href="http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum" target="_blank">http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum</a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <br>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google<br>Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.<br>To post to this group, send email to <a href="mailto:sparc-oaforum@arl.org">sparc-oaforum@arl.org</a><br>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to<br><a href="mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe@arl.org">sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe@arl.org</a><br>For more options, visit this group at<br><a href="http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum">http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>