[GOAL] Re: Open data

Tue May 8 16:23:40 BST 2012

The trouble with focussing on 'green', rather than on full BOAI-compliant OA for research literature, is that it has become an a priori concession and an end in itself. That only confuses matters (as do ill-defined labels such as 'gratis' and 'libre'). 

We should insist on BOAI-compliant OA (CC-BY or CC-0) for all research articles, including for self-archived articles. And if anything, we should insist on institutional repositories to actually be searchable and accessible also for text mining. Human-readable OA is a conditio sine qua non, but it is not sufficient for modern science.

Jan Velterop

On 8 May 2012, at 15:01, Richard Poynder wrote:

> [SH] PM-R keeps reiterating that Gratis OA is not enough,  but he takes no practical account of the fact that we don't even have Gratis OA, that Gratis OA is within reach, via mandates, and that more than Gratis OA is not within reach.
>  
> >> 
>  
> One of the points I take away from David Willetts’ speech to the Publishers Association last week is that, whether one welcomes it or not, the UK government has decided that scientific open data is an issue that it needs to take an interest in, and to facilitate.
>  
>  As Willetts put it, “Data mining is becoming an important part of scientific advance, with computer scientists working collaboratively with researchers and publishers to develop the necessary tools and technologies. With well over a million academic articles every year, researchers wanting to keep abreast of developments in their field are going to need analytic tools just to know where to start. There are proven benefits for humankind from text and data mining, such as the discovery of new treatments for Alzheimer’s. So we are considering how to advance UK capability in data mining in the light of the recommendations on intellectual property from Ian Hargreaves.”
>  
> This suggests to me that effective text and data mining could be within reach, and the UK government seems intent on providing a ladder to allow researchers reach it.
>  
> I think it is probably also fair to assume that other governments, and funders, will begin to take a similar position.  
>  
> As always, the danger is that governments might misunderstand the issues, and provide the wrong type of ladder. For that reason, the more clearly the research community understands exactly what it needs, and articulates those needs, the more likely it is that any ladder  that governments provide will prove fit for purpose.
>  
> Richard Poynder
> 
> 
> On 08/05/2012 11:50, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>> 
>> For the perplexed reader:
>> 
>> 1. Peter Murray-Rust is a dedicated advocate for certain text-mining and
>> re-use rights that are very important and very fruitful in certain fields
>> of research (but not all, and probably not many).
>> 
>> 2. One of the necessary conditions for the kind of text-mining and
>> re-use rights PM-R seeks is free online access to the articles
>> (Gratis OA).
>> 
>> 3. We do not yet have Gratis OA, because authors are not providing
>> it, partly out of sluggishness and partly out of fear (see Keith
>> Jeffery's posting on publisher FUD), even though virtually all authors 
>> want Gratis OA and even though the majority of journals (including 
>> almost all the top journals in almost all fields) already endorse their 
>> authors providing immediate Gratis OA by self-archiving their refereed
>> final drafts in their institutional repository (Green Gratis OA).
>> 
>> 4. Only about 20% of articles are being made Gratis OA (because
>> of author sluggishness and fear of FUD) even though over 60% 
>> of journals endorse immediate Green Gratis OA, 90% endorse it 
>> after an embargo, and user needs during the embargo can be fulfilled 
>> via "Almost-OA" using the institutional repositories' semi-automatic 
>> email-eprint-request Button.
>> 
>> 5. Research institutions and funders are in a position to
>> mandate (require) Green Gratis OA, as the remedy for author
>> sluggishness and fear of FUD, which would immediately
>> generate at least 60% immediate Green Gratis OA, plus 40%
>> embargoed OA and Almost-OA.
>> 
>> PM-R keeps reiterating that Gratis OA is not enough, 
>> but he takes no practical account of the fact that we don't 
>> even have Gratis OA, that Gratis OA is within reach, via 
>> mandates, and that more than Gratis OAis not within reach.
>> 
>> We would be at an OA impasse if grasping the Green
>> Gratis OA that is already within immediate reach of
>> Green Gratis OA mandates is discouraged as not being
>> enough, because it does not meet all the potential needs
>> of some fields.
>> 
>> Whatever you call it, "Libre OA" or Gratis OA plus certain
>> further re-use rights is not within reach today. Publishers oppose
>> it and it is not at all clear whether all, many, or most authors
>> want it -- but it is clear that only 20% of authors are providing
>> even just Gratis OA.
>> 
>> Hence immediate burden of the OA movement is not, as PM-R 
>> suggests, to gather evidence as to how many authors need and 
>> want the further re-use rights PM-R seeks. Nor is there any practical 
>> strategy for mandating the further re-use rights PM-R seeks.
>> 
>> The immediate priority is to mandate the Green Gratis
>> OA that is already within reach -- and that also happens
>> to be a necessary condition for the further re-use rights PM-R 
>> seeks.
>> 
>> I urge PM-R to stop arguing that Gratis OA is not enough,
>> and that what is needed instead is Gratis OA plus certain 
>> further re-use rights.
>> 
>> Stop letting the out-of-reach best get in the way of 
>> grasping the within reach better.
>> 
>> We'll all end up a lot better off that way.
>> 
>> Stevan Harnad
>> 
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120508/272ce2ca/attachment-0001.html 