[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[Penny Andrews]

Sally, for many scholars (who do currently exist, not just in the
future) textmining is their main research activity. Open licensing to do
that unimpeded isn't some theoretical paradise, it's what they need right
now to do their work.

On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Sally Morris wrote:

>  I agree completely that 'green' and 'gold' (however tightly or loosely
> defined) are the means, not the end
>
> But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily
> tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put
> it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read
> them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it)
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
> Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
> Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk');>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'goal-bounces at eprints.org');> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'goal-bounces at eprints.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *Jan Velterop
> *Sent:* 12 December 2013 13:44
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly
> CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List
>
>  But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI
> definition is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you
> navigate the ocean of politics and vested interests of science publishing,
> you need to tack sometimes to make progress against the wind. That's
> permissible, even necessary. But it doesn't change the intended destination
> on which a good sailor keeps his focus. If that's religion, anything is.
> (Which may be the case :-)).
>
> One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal.
> Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall
> course needed to reach the destination.
>
> In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of
> optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But
> that's a different discussion, I think
>
> Jan Velterop
>
>
> On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, "Sally Morris" <sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>  What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by adhering
> so rigidly to tight definitions.  A more relaxed focus on the end rather
> than the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose benefit
> it is supposed to exist
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
> Tel:  +44 (0)1903 871286
> Email:  sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *David Prosser
> *Sent:* 12 December 2013 08:37
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises
> CredibilityofBeall's List
>
>  Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open Access
> Initiative to show that re-use was an integral part of the original
> definition of open access and not some later ('quasi-religeous') addition
> as Sally avers.  And by doing so he is betraying some type of religious
> zeal?
>
> One of the interesting aspect of the open access debate has been the
> language.  Those who argue against OA have been keen to paint OA advocates
> as 'zealots', extremists, and impractical idealists.  I've always felt that
> such characterisation was an attempt to mask the paucity of argument.
>
> David
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131212/f89831d6/attachment-0001.html