<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk" target="_blank">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Richard, you are quite right that making research data open for all<br>
to mine is not the same thing as making the texts of research articles<br>
(Libre) OA for text-mining, and you are also right that there are<br>
different problems associated with each.<br>
<br>
</blockquote><div>I should point out that Libre OA as defined by Suber-Harnad does not automatically give rights for textmining. Libre OA indicates that "some permission barriers are removed" - it does not indicate what those barriers are. For example by default an toll-access article may not be posted in an Institutional repository. The permission to post it is the removal of a barrier. However that permission does not allow text-mining as the copyirgh and re-use rights remain with other parties (publisher or repository or both). For this reason the phrase "LibreOA" is operationally meaningless - it may have political value. Wiley claims "fully open access" for its Gold hybrid and no doubt would label it as LibreOA but I can see no difference between it and publisher-supported Green OA other than that Wiley is 3000 USD better off and the research community is worse and that the authors can claim they have "Gold OA".<br>
<br>I urge people to realise that textmining requires an explicit statement of rights of re-use. <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Making article texts open for text-mining calls for Libre OA. </blockquote><div><br>Specifically it calls for BOAI-compliant LibreOA, not just "LibreOA". It also calls for clear licensing with something equivalent to CC-BY or CC0.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
But few publishers endorse Libre OA, for fear of 3rd-party free-riders.<br></blockquote><div><br>BMC and PLoS do this enthusastically. I have seen no serious evidence of free-riders.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
(Moreover, some flavors of Libre OA call for further re-use rights<br>
that even some authors would not wish to grant.)<br></blockquote><div><br>This statement is made without evidence and is typical of some of the casual and damaging inaccuracies made in this debate. I have no evidence that people fail to publish in PLoS and BMC because of their worry about re-use. <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
So all in all, both data OA and Libre OA face problems that Green<br>
Gratis OA does not face.<br></blockquote><div><br>And they deserve careful, accurate discussion.<br><br></div>P.<br><br></div>-- <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>