[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List

[Graham Triggs]

On 12 December 2013 15:14, Sally Morris <sally at morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>wrote:

>  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)
>

Sorry Sally, but I really have to disagree. It is a definition for what a
number of people considered to be important. Plus, it is consistent with
the other existing definitions of "open ..." (such as open source).

Clearly, other people may have a different opinion. Some may feel that
everyone who needs access already has it (or they at least don't feel that
people denied access are particularly relevant to them). Others may believe
that only being able to read is important, and additional terms, whilst
beneficial are not as necessary, and may be holding back delivering
"access".

That doesn't mean that the BOAI definition is too narrow. It means that
people are campaigning for a different end. Which is fine. But as they are
different ends (with some similarities), let's call them different things.
We have "Open Access" - as defined by BOAI, and there is "public access",
which provides the ability to read for free, but with none of the other
freedoms.

Let people choose which unambiguously defined term provides for optimal
scholarly exchange, rather than redefining a 10 year-old term, changes to
which nobody will ever be able to agree on.

G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131212/62d8b8f9/attachment.html