<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Philip Hunter wrote:</span><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px">
<br></p>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Stevan, <br>You said:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
"<i>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</i>)."</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>So nothing has changed since 1999? </blockquote>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">Not much. Gratis OA is at about 30%</p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">
Plenty of powerful new possibilities have opened up — since 1999 and even before. </p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">
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. </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">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. </p>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">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. </blockquote>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">Can’t use it if you can’t access it.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">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. </blockquote>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px">The Poynder/Royster interview was not about the "digital library," nor about informatics. It was about providing open access to peer-reviewed journal articles.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">You did not take on board the suggestion of taking a normative approach to open access questions. </blockquote>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">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.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><br></p><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
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.</blockquote>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">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.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><br></p><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">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.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">And the definitional wrangling is about prematurely raising the goalpost to Libre OA when we have not yet managed to provide Gratis OA.</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px">Stevan Harnad</span></div></div></div></div>