[GOAL] FW: [sparc-oaforum] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

[Richard Poynder]

Forwarding from SPARC-OAForum. 

 

From: Rick Anderson [mailto:rick.anderson at utah.edu] 
Sent: 23 January 2017 16:03
To: richard.poynder at btinternet.com; SPARC-OAForum at arl.org
Subject: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?

 

For what it’s worth, Richard and I seem to have been thinking along similar lines recently. My posting in the Scholarly Kitchen today is about competing definitions of OA; part 2, tomorrow, will be about competing visions for the future of scholarly communication among various members of the OA community:

 

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/01/23/diversity-open-access-movement-part-1-differing-definitions/

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

Desk: (801) 587-9989

Cell: (801) 721-1687

rick.anderson at utah.edu <mailto:rick.anderson at utah.edu> 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Poynder <richard.poynder at btinternet.com <mailto:richard.poynder at btinternet.com> >
Date: 23 January 2017 at 11:19
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access?
To: scholcomm at lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org> 

OA advocates maintain that the formative definition of open access agreed at the meeting that led to the Budapest Open Access Initiative means that only papers with a CC BY licence attached can be described as open access. And yet millions of papers in open repositories are not available with a CC BY licence.

 

Take, for instance, PubMed Central, which currently has 4.2 million documents deposited in it. A recent search shows that only 24% of the non-historical documents in PMC have a CC BY licence, and so 76% of the content cannot be described as open access.

 

The good news is that the CC BY percentage in PMC is growing over time. Nevertheless, that it has still only reached 24% a decade after the NIH Public Access policy came into effect suggests that the OA movement still has a way to go if it is to live up to the BOAI definition. 

 

More here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-nih-public-access-policy-triumph-of.html

 

Richard Poynder





 

-- 

Richard Poynder
www.richardpoynder.co.uk <http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk> 

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to sparc-oaforum at arl.org <mailto:sparc-oaforum at arl.org> 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org <mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org> 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org <mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org> .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170123/8c7027fc/attachment-0001.html