<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">For the perplexed reader:<div><br></div><div>1. Peter Murray-Rust is a dedicated advocate for certain text-mining and</div><div>re-use rights that are very important and very fruitful in certain fields</div><div>of research (but not all, and probably not many).</div><div><br></div><div>2. One of the necessary conditions for the kind of text-mining and</div><div>re-use rights PM-R seeks is free online access to the articles</div><div>(Gratis OA).</div><div><br></div><div>3. We do not yet have Gratis OA, because authors are not providing</div><div>it, partly out of sluggishness and partly out of fear (see Keith</div><div>Jeffery's posting on publisher FUD), even though virtually all authors </div><div>want Gratis OA and even though the majority of journals (including </div><div>almost all the top journals in almost all fields) already endorse their </div><div>authors providing immediate Gratis OA by self-archiving their refereed</div><div>final drafts in their institutional repository (Green Gratis OA).</div><div><br></div><div>4. Only about 20% of articles are being made Gratis OA (because</div><div>of author sluggishness and fear of FUD) even though over 60% </div><div>of journals endorse immediate Green Gratis OA, 90% endorse it </div><div>after an embargo, and user needs during the embargo can be fulfilled </div><div>via "Almost-OA" using the institutional repositories' semi-automatic </div><div>email-eprint-request Button.</div><div><br></div><div>5. Research institutions and funders are in a position to</div><div>mandate (require) Green Gratis OA, as the remedy for author</div><div>sluggishness and fear of FUD, which would immediately</div><div>generate at least 60% immediate Green Gratis OA, plus 40%</div><div>embargoed OA and Almost-OA.</div><div><br></div><div>PM-R keeps reiterating that Gratis OA is not enough, </div><div>but he takes no practical account of the fact that we don't </div><div>even have Gratis OA, that Gratis OA is within reach, via </div><div>mandates, and that more than Gratis OAis not within reach.</div><div><br></div><div>We would be at an OA impasse if grasping the Green</div><div>Gratis OA that is already within immediate reach of</div><div>Green Gratis OA mandates is discouraged as not being</div><div>enough, because it does not meet all the potential needs</div><div>of some fields.</div><div><br></div><div>Whatever you call it, "Libre OA" or Gratis OA plus certain</div><div>further re-use rights is not within reach today. Publishers oppose</div><div>it and it is not at all clear whether all, many, or most authors</div><div>want it -- but it is clear that only 20% of authors are providing</div><div>even just Gratis OA.</div><div><br></div><div>Hence immediate burden of the OA movement is not, as PM-R </div><div>suggests, to gather evidence as to how many authors need and </div><div>want the further re-use rights PM-R seeks. Nor is there any practical </div><div>strategy for mandating the further re-use rights PM-R seeks.</div><div><br></div><div>The immediate priority is to mandate the Green Gratis</div><div>OA that is already within reach -- and that also happens</div><div>to be a necessary condition for the further re-use rights PM-R </div><div>seeks.</div><div><br></div><div>I urge PM-R to stop arguing that Gratis OA is not enough,</div><div>and that what is needed instead is Gratis OA plus certain </div><div>further re-use rights.</div><div><br></div><div>Stop letting the out-of-reach best get in the way of </div><div>grasping the within reach better.</div><div><br></div><div>We'll all end up a lot better off that way.</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div><div><div>On 2012-05-08, at 3:59 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><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>
_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>