<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Richard Poynder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk">ricky@richardpoynder.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-GB"><div><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif""> </span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"">The UK's Research Councils have proposed a revised policy on Open Access which further clarifies RCUK's definition of OA and strengthens some of the criteria that must be satisfied. In particular, the policy commits to libre Open Access as the agreed RCUK definition, ...</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>Please can you clarify what is the RCUK's definition of "OA" and "libre". I hope that libre means "consistent with BOAI/BBB" or else it is operationally useless for anything other than human eyeballs. (See Wiley's definition of "fully open access" - I review this in <a href="http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/03/04/wiley%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cfully-open-access%E2%80%9D-chemistry-open-my-review-if-this-is-%E2%80%9Cgold-oa%E2%80%9D-i-don%E2%80%99t-want-it/">http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/03/04/wiley%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cfully-open-access%E2%80%9D-chemistry-open-my-review-if-this-is-%E2%80%9Cgold-oa%E2%80%9D-i-don%E2%80%99t-want-it/</a> ) For example do the members of this list really believe that this is "libre"?<br>
</div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>