[GOAL] Re: Fwd: I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

SHP See: *I don't want free online access: I want free online access with
>> re-use rights!
>> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1092-I-dont-want-free-online-access-I-want-free-online-access-with-re-use-rights%21.html>*
>>
>
> I can't let this torrent of hypotheticals and suppositions stand
>
> This includes completely misleading statements such as:
>
> "I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
> rights!"
>
> *SH rebuttal : But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a
> field are near-useless...*
>
> "near-useless" is SH's judgment. He has no evidence for this and it's
> simply catstrophically wrong… My research on 15-20% of the literature is
> not "near-useless" and this will become clear in the next 1-2 months
>

Here's the full context of which PM-R has quoted a fragment, ignoring all
the rest, and thereby missing the point entirely. Readers are encouraged to
draw their own conclusions:

"I don't want free online
access<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/885-Open-Access-Gratis-and-Libre.html>:
I want free online access with re-use
rights<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#36.Re-Use>
!

*But we don't even have free online access yet...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access is part of free online access with re-use rights...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online
access with re-use rights is not...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access today will pave the way for free online access with
re-use rights tomorrow...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are
near-useless...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But publishers allowing authors to provide free online access and re-use
rights can immediately be undercut by free-riding rival publishers;
publishers allowing authors to provide free online access alone cannot...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But publishers will sooner allow authors to provide free online access
than allow them to provide free online access with re-use rights…*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But institutions and funders can sooner mandate
<http://roarmap.eprints.org/> free online access than free online access
with re-use rights…*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even
most or many users need re-use rights...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But all authors already want all non-subscribing users to have immediate
free online access; not all or even most or many authors know or care about
re-use rights yet...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access with re-use rights today entails paying publishers
even more, over and above uncancellable subscriptions, out of scarce
research funds, whereas free online access entails no extra cost...*

"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use
rights!"

*But free online access is better, even if free online access with re-use
rights is best...*

"I don't want the better: I want the best!"

*But the better is already within reach
<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=grasp+OR+libre+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
and
the best is not...*

"I don't want the better: I want the best!"


 *Stevan Harnad*

I am starting right now to mine the bioscience literature. BOAI #openaccess
> is somewhere around 15-20 percent of currently published bioscience. That
> is enormously valuable as it stands. SH may describe my research as
> "near-useless" but I can extract high-quality publishable science, and I
> intend to publish it if it achieves a useful scientific gain. There are
> MANY cases where comprehensiveness is not required.
>
> Here are some of the things I and colleagues intend to do - they are NOT
> "near-useless"
>
> * compiling a vocabulary. This is of enormous value in nearly every field.
> 20% will contain all the commonly used vocabulary. The value of the
> long-tail is not critical in most fields
>
> * building a natural language toolkit. I have done this and it is widely
> used . I do not need the whole literature to do this.
>
> * creating a corpus for the community to use as a reference. This is
> extremely useful and has been plagued in the past by rights issues
>
> * extracting information from diagrams and figures.
>
> * building reference data. My group has built a system with half the
> world's published crystallographic data (200,000 structures) . For many
> purposes - docking drugs into enzymes, building nanomaterials , supporting
> Quantum mechanics calculations - it's essentially as valuable as the
> complete literature.
>
> * reference data. Enormously valuable.
>
> It is a great pity that Open Access has become embroiled in personal
> crusades rather than constructive discussion and accurate opinions.
>
> My research on 15-20% of the literature is not "near-useless" and this
> will become clear in the next 1-2 months
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131223/c40262e8/attachment.html