[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Sour Grapes in the SSP Scholarly Scullery

[Joseph Esposito]

Delighted to see how Professor Harnad's actions move in one way while his
argument goes in another.  Why the cross-posting? Well, this is despite the
fact that the post and comments he cites are openly available on the
Scholarly Kitchen.  If Green OA were inefficient, there would be no need to
cross-post:  things would be easily found from a single source.  Green OA
is a mess, and that is its virtue:  it could not exist if it were otherwise.

I think it is also incorrect, or at least misleading, to say that 60% of
articles are OA now.  The figure is closer to 100%.  Articles appear
everywhere:  on author's blogs, in institutional repositories, on sites
dedicated to particular topics--not to mention the availability as email
attachments.  What's missing is an easy way to find things and to know that
what you find is the version you are looking for. If that happens, there
would be no Green OA at all.

Praise be to chaos and confusion.  Green OA depends on it.

Joe Esposito


On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:

> *Joseph Esposito:*<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/09/26/when-it-comes-to-green-oa-nice-guys-finish-last/>
>
> *"Stevan Harnad engaged Rick’s comment<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1051-Is-the-Library-Community-Friend-or-Foe-of-OA.html> and
> asserted that such a [journal cancellation] policy was a very bad thing
> since it would set back the advance of Green OA. This is an interesting
> remark, as it reveals Professor Harnad’s conviction that librarians, indeed
> the whole world, should view the achievement of his idiosyncratic goal as
> their highest priority. As far as I know, it is not the mission of Rick’s
> institution or any other to put Green OA at the top of a list of
> desiderata. Most institutions put service to their own institutions first,
> as one would expect. Cancelling Green OA journals will indeed set back the
> advance of Green OA, but that’s beside the point."*
>
> *David Crotty*<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/09/26/when-it-comes-to-green-oa-nice-guys-finish-last/#comment-112263> (with
> 11 scholarly thumbs up from his co-cuisiniers): *
> "I find Dr. Harnad’s response here somewhat appalling. Progress in
> implementing Open Access will come from open discussion, analysis and
> experimentation, not from censorship, obfuscation and withholding
> information. When voices as disparate as Kent Anderson and Cameron Neylon
> are in agreement about OA reaching a new era of practical implementation,
> it should be a sign that Harnad is out of step here. It’s always valuable
> to have someone willing to point out the state of the Emperor’s clothing."
> *
>
> Compliments to the chefs. Some suggested recipe upgrades:
>
> 1. No suggestion made that institutions cannot or should not cancel
> journals if their articles are all or almost all Green.
>
> (No such journal in sight yet, however, since Green OA is still hovering
> around 20-30%, apart from some parts of Physics -- but there it's already
> been at or near 100% for over 20 years, and no cancellations in sight<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261006/>.
> For the rest, when Green OA -- which grows anarchically, article by
> article, not systematically, journal by journal<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265753/> --
> prevails universally, because Green OA mandates prevail, all or most
> journal articles will be Green universally, so Green OA will not be a
> factor in deciding whether to cancel this journal rather than that one.)
>
> 2. The issue with Rick was not about the notion of canceling journals
> because their articles are all or almost all Green, but about cancelling
> journals (60%) because they do *not* have a policy of embargoing Green OA!
>
> 3. And such a perverse cancellation policy would not be a setback for
> Green OA but for OA itself. (But not a *big* setback, thanks to the Liège<http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/102031>
> -FNRS <http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/> model immediate-deposit mandate
> recommended by BOAI-10<http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations>
> , HEFCE<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html>
> , BIS<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html>
>  and HOAP<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Implementing_a_policy#Internal_use_of_deposited_versions>,
> which is immune to publisher embargoes.)
>
> (I notice in the SSP scullery discussion above that my suggestion that
> Rick should post his OA-unfriendly cancellation strategy to library lists
> rather than to OA lists amounts to a call for censorship over open
> discussion. I add only that I am not the moderator of any list, hence have
> no say over their content. It was an open expression, on an open list, of
> my opinion (together with the reasons for it) that such discussion belongs
> on another open list.)
>
> *Stevan Harnad*
>



-- 
Joseph J. Esposito
Processed Media
espositoj at gmail.com
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130928/f25811f2/attachment-0001.html