<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="OPENWEBMAIL" name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
Hi David,
<br />
<br />I have argued against including CC BY requirement for the Seal, without success.
<br />I am not sure everyone using CC BY understands what is it about, and
<br />whether it is really what they want - apparently not. As Stevan just commented,
<br />it is about re-use, not access. As I have commented, thoughts, numbers,
<br />assertions etc. in scientific articles can be reused without CC, and the articles
<br />themselves are not things one would want to reuse. (Reuse for an article
<br />could be re-publishing. In the past re-publishing was important for paper
<br />articles, but now? Access solves everything. Other re-use scenario could
<br />be distributing copies for a class of students. Again - if it is accessible,
<br />why hand out copies? But I think even such distribution is possible without CC by fair use.)
<br />Data mining possibilities are important, but CC BY is not about data mining.
<br />Figures in the articles, on the other hand, could be put nder CC BY!
<br />
<br />The argument that many people publishes in journals with the seal, therefore
<br />CC BY is good, is not very convincing... I have not done a survey within the author
<br />community of the journal I run, neither in the community of users of my repositories,
<br />but I have the strong feeling that many of them does not know or care much about OA.
<br />They publish in a journal, because it is perceived as a "good journal", and they do
<br />not care about the details how the OA contributes to the impact. They deposit articles
<br />to the repository because they are mandated to do so. Some of them has difficulties
<br />choosing the access and copyright models in EPrints, and acknowledge that they have
<br />selected those more or less randomly. Why should scientists understand CC BY if
<br />we do not understand it?
<br />
<br />Andras Holl
<br />
<br /><font size="2"><b>On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:38:19 +0100, David Prosser wrote</b>
<br />> The SPARC
Europe Seal for Open Access Journals (Tom rather mangels the name) is still
going:
<br />>
<br />> <a href="http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempl&templ=faq&uiLanguage=en#seal">http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempl&templ=faq&uiLanguage=en#seal</a>
<br />>
<br />> Journals that match the standards of the Seal are labelled as such in
the DOAJ - there are currently just under 1000 journals with the Seal.
<br />>
<br />> The thousands of authors who have published CC-BY articles don't appear
to share Tom's view that liberal rights assignments are nonsense
<br />>
<br />> David
<br />>
<br />> <span style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;" class="Apple-style-span">
<br />> <span style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;" class="Apple-style-span">
<br />> <span style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; font-size: medium;" class="Apple-style-span">
<br />>
<br />>
</span></span></span>
<br />>
<br />> On 10 Oct 2012, at 17:57, Prof. T.D. Wilson wrote:
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /><blockquote type="cite"><font size="4" face="georgia,
serif">Steven Harnad is certainly right on this issue, but the cause of
it is the altogether impracticable definition of "open access" by the BOAI - the
notion that authors should give up, effectively, ALL commercial rights to their
work, allowing use "<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">for any
other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than
those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself", leaving only
"</span></font><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: georgia,serif; font-size: large;">control
over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and
cited". We have a situation in which authors are asked to abandon their
rights to the publisher, and now they are being asked to abandon them to anyone
at all. It was this nonsense that led open access publishers, including
those who do not levy author charges, to protest the idea that this definition
should form the basis for some kind of SPARC award for OA journals - the
opposition was such that, as far as I'm aware, we have never heard anything more
about the award.</span>
<br />>
<br />> On 10 October 2012 14:49, Stevan Harnad
<span dir="ltr"><<a target="_blank" href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> ** Cross-Posted **
<br />>
<br />> This is a response to a proposal
(by some individuals in the researcher community) to raise the goalposts of
Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates from where they are now (free
online access) to CC-BY (free online access plus unlimited re-use and
re-publication
rights):
<br />>
<br />> 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA
mandates should on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS
unlimited re-use and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster
for Green OA growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and
hence another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold
CC-BY).
<br />>
<br />> 2. The fundamental practical reason why global
Green Gratis OA (free online access) is readily reachable is precisely because
<i>it requires only free online access and not more</i>.
<br />>
<br />>
3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green OA
today.
<br />>
<br />> 4. That is also why repositories' <a target="_blank" href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/">Almost-OA
Button</a> can tide over user needs during any embargo for the remaining 40% of
journals.
<br />>
<br />> 5. "Upgrading" Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring
CC-BY would mean that most journals would <i>immediately</i> adopt Green OA
embargoes, and their length would be years, not
months.
<br />>
<br />> 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would
become legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY,
thereby doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly
practice.
<br />>
<br />> 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of
patient pragmatics and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put
ahead of all fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher
lobby victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply
prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and little
OA).
<br />>
<br />> 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to
anyone who is not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for
CC-BY, or a conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then
any rival publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any
subscription journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form,
thereby undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs:
Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a forced
immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY...
<br />>
<br />> 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by
authors, and Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal
action.
<br />>
<br />> 10. But of course publishers would not allow the
assertion of CC-BY by its authors without legal action (and it is the fear of
legal action that motivates the quest for CC-BY!):
<br />>
<br />> 11. And the very real threat of legal action facing Green
CC-BY self-archiving by authors and Green CC-BY mandates by institutions (unlike
the bogus threat of legal action against Gratis Green self-archiving and Gratis
Green mandates) would of course put an end to authors' providing Green OA and
institutions' mandating Green
OA.
<br />>
<br />> 12. In theory, funders, unlike institutions, can mandate
whatever they like, since they are paying for the research: But if a funder Gold
OA mandate like Finch/RCUK's -- that denies fundees the right to publish in any
journal that does not offer either Gold CC-BY or Gratis-Green with at most a
6-12 month embargo, and that only allows authors to pick Green if the journal
does not offer Gold -- is already doomed to author resentment, resistance and
non-compliance, then adding the constraint that any Green must be CC-BY would be
to court outright researcher
rebellion.
<br />>
<br />> In short, the pre-emptive insistence upon CC-BY OA, if
recklessly and irrationally heeded, would bring the (already slow) progress
toward OA, and the promise of progress, to a grinding halt.
<br />>
<br />>
Finch/RCUK's bias toward paid Gold over cost-free Green was clearly a result of
self-interested publisher lobbying. But if it were compounded by a premature and
counterproductive insistence on CC-BY for all by a small segment of the
researcher community, then the prospects of OA (both Gratis and CC-BY), so
fertile if we at last take the realistic, pragmatic course of mandating Gratis
Green OA globally first, would become as fallow as they have been for the past
two decades, for decades to
come.
<br />>
<br />> Some quote/comments follow below:
<br />>
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />>
<blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> <b>Jan Velterop:</b> We've always heard, from
Stevan Harnad, that the author was the one who intrinsically had copyright on
the manuscript version, so could deposit it, as an open access article, in an
open repository irrespective of the publisher's views.
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br />>
<br />> I said -- because it's true, and two
decades' objective evidence shows it -- that authors can deposit the refereed,
final draft with no realistic threat of copyright action from the
publisher.
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> JV: If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY
licence to the manuscript version. </blockquote></blockquote>
<br />>
<br />>
Nothing of the sort. Author self-archiving to provide free online access (Gratis
Green OA) is one thing -- claiming and dispensing re-use and republication
rights (CC-BY) is quite
another.
<br />>
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> JV: If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with
open access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final,
published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by Stevan
Harnad is invalid.
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br />>
<br />> Incorrect. Authors can make their
refereed final drafts free for all online without the prospect of legal action
from the publisher, but not with a CC-BY license to re-use and
re-publish.
<br />>
<br />> Moreover, for authors who elect to comply with publisher
embargoes on Green Gratis OA, there is the option of depositing in Closed Access
and relying on the Almost-OA Button to provide eprint-requesters with individual
eprints during the embargo. This likewise does not come with CC-BY
rights.
<br />>
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> JV: Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be
deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence his
U-turn, I don't know.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />>
<br />> No U-turn whatsoever. Just never the slightest
implication from me that anything more than free online access was
intended.
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<br />> JV: But if he was
right at first, and I believe that's the case, that also means that it can be
covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't attach the licence, but 'gold' OA
publishers can't either. It's always the author, as copyright holder by default.
All repositories and OA publishers can do is require it as a condition of
acceptance (to be included in the repository or to be published). What the
publisher can do if he doesn't like the author making available the manuscript
with open access, is apply the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the
article.
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br />>
<br />> The above is extremely unrealistic
and counterproductive policy advice to institutions and funders.
<br />>
<br />> If an OA mandate is gratuitously upgraded to CC-BY it just means that
most authors will be unable to get their papers published in their journal of
choice if they comply with the mandate. So authors will not comply with the
mandate, and the mandate will
fail.
<br />>
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><b>Peter
Murray-Rust: </b>If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the norm for
deposition in repositories then I would embrace it enthusiastically. I can see
no downside other than that some publishers will fight it. But they fight anyway
</blockquote>
<br />>
<br />> The downside is that authors won't fight, and hence OA itself
will lose the global Gratis Green OA that is fully within its reach, and stay in
the non-OA limbo (neither Gratis nor CC-BY, neither Green nor Gold) in which
most research still is today -- and has been for two
decades.
<br />>
<br />> And the irony is that -- speaking practically rather than
ideologically -- the fastest and surest prospect for both CC-BY and Gold is to
first quickly reach global Gratis Green OA. Needlessly over-reaching can
undermine all of OA's
objectives.
<br />>
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">PMR: It would resolve all the
apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. It is only because Green licences are
undefined that we have this problem at all.
<br />>
</blockquote>
<br />>
<br />> On the contrary: raising the Gratis Green 6-12
goalposts to immediate Green CC-BY would make the Finch/RCUK a pure hybrid-Gold
mandate and nothing else. And its failure would be a resounding
one.
<br />>
<br />> <blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">PMR: And if we all agreed it
could be launched for Open Access Week</blockquote>
<br />>
<br />> That would
certainly be a prominent historic epitaph for OA. I hope, on the contrary, that
pragmatic voices will be raised during OA week, so that we can get on with
reaching for the reachable instead of gratuitously raising the goalposts to
unrealistic
heights.
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br />>
<br />> Stevan
Harnad</font></span>
<br />>
<br />>
--
<br />>
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
<br />>
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f">http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f</a>
<br />>
<br />> </blockquote>
<br />>
<br clear="all" />
<br />>
<br />> --
<br />>
<br />>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------Professor
T.D. Wilson, PhD, PhD (h.c.)
<br />> Publisher and Editor in Chief: Information
Research
<br />> <a target="_blank" href="http://informationr.net/ir/">http://informationr.net/ir/</a>
<br />> E-mail: <a target="_blank" href="mailto:wilsontd@gmail.com">wilsontd@gmail.com</a>
<br />>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br />>
<br />>
<span><ATT00001..txt></span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br />
Andras Holl / Holl Andras
e-mail: holl@konkoly.hu
<br />
Konkoly Observatory / MTA CsFK CsI Tel.: +36 1 3919368 Fax:
+36 1 2754668
<br />
IT manager / Szamitastechn. rendszervez. Mail: H1525 POBox 67, Budapest, Hungary
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br />
<br />
</font>
</BODY>
</HTML>