<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16448"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Forgive me, but isn't this a bit like trying to define
'freedom' according to strict criteria?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Like it or not, 'open access' has become a widely used term
which, at its most basic, does indeed just mean free online access to scholarly
content.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Further refinements are all very well, but are not going to
change the way that most people understand and use the term.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Does that actually matter? I don't think
so!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Sally</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=757251217-29082012></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Sally Morris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>South House, The Street, Clapham,
Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Tel: +44 (0)1903
871286</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Email:
sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> goal-bounces@eprints.org
[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Stevan
Harnad<BR><B>Sent:</B> 29 August 2012 16:36<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access
List (Successor of AmSci)<BR><B>Cc:</B> jisc-repositories<BR><B>Subject:</B>
[GOAL] Re: Definition of OA and its Priorities and
Obstacles<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; FONT-SIZE: medium"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV class=AppleOriginalContents>
<DIV>On 2012-08-29, at 3:35 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite"><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">I have been asking
several times for definitions of "Open Access". I get no answers but am
flooded with political slogans…</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Gratis OA: Free online access</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Libre OA: Free online access + various re-use rights (there is no agreement
on which ones, but maybe up to and including CC-BY)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite"> It is one person's (PS) analysis of the
situation, not an agreed communal view. It may be that many of the community
agree it, but it is still one person's view.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Peter Suber has been the principal spokesman, and was the principal drafter
of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), and is now the principal
drafter of the 10-year revision.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Many of the community agree. Peter Suber is extremely dedicated to
reaching a consensus. But a consensus in human affairs almost never means
complete unanimity.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It would be helpful, though, if dissenting voices were to address matters
of substance, rather than matters of definition.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I think what you (Peter Murray-Rust) are saying is that for the needs of
your field, Gratis OA is not enough: You need Libre OA, with particular re-use
rights (let's say CC-BY).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>That's fine. It is not the definition of Gratis and Libre OA that is at
fault for the fact that we don't yet have Libre OA for your field: what is at
fault is the fact that we don't yet have Libre OA for your field.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It is not a "political slogan" to say that Gratis OA is much easier to
reach than Libre OA, and that Green OA mandates are a way to reach it. It is
simply a practical reality.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite"><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">It is not "an update of
the BBB definition" - this cannot be unilaterally decided by one-and-a-half
signatories on a rolling basis. If there were a community process rather than
individual pronouncements I would probably feel more
comfortable. <BR></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>To repeat, tilting at a definition (BBB is roughly equivalent to Libre OA)
is not going to bring us any more OA. More likely, it will give opponents of OA
-- as well as those for whom free online access is not enough -- the chance to
say that "'OA' mandates do not generate 'OA'".</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>A rather hollow gain from tilting at a definition instead of focusing on
viable, practical ways to generate either (1) free online access or (2) free
online access + various re-use rights.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite"><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate"> "Green" and
"Gold" are not definitions of the state of Open Access, they are - at best -
definitions of a process.<BR></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Correct (and I don't think anyone has said otherwise).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">Where is "free online access" defined? It is not
a simple concept. (a) is it permanent or temporary?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Permanent. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>"free, immediate, permanent online access" to the full text of refereed
research articles for anyone, webwide: <A
href="http://bit.ly/2380-refs">http://bit.ly/2380-refs</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">(b) how is it recognized?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I don't understand the question.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>If you can access it for free on the web, it's freely accessible to you
now. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>("Permanent" is a tall order: Please consult David Hume on "<A
href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/">problem of
induction</A>")</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">(c) is it a property of (i) a
document</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Yes</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">or (ii) a location</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Yes</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">or (iii) a process?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Well, you have to get it there somehow</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">Or some combination?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>See above</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">(i) What are the "some" re-use
rights?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Very far from being universally agreed. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>For some (like yourself, I think) these include data-minability by machine,
and the right to re-publish ("derivative works"). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>For others it is CC-BY.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Libre OA potentially covers the entire CC spectrum.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">(ii) Where are they listed and
defined?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Please see the Creative Commons site: <A
href="http://creativecommons.org">http://creativecommons.org</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The OA movement is not the same thing as the Open License movement, though
Open License is one way to characterize Libre OA.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It is not that Libre OA lacks a definition, but that there are a huge
panoply of potential re-uses, hence of re-use rights.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The important practical thing is, again, not a matter of definition. It
depends on what users need and what creators want to provide -- and, most
important of all, how to ensure that it is indeed provided.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">(iii) How are they recognized?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Not my speciality, but I believe the CC people are working to make clear
licenses machine- as well as human-readable.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite"><FONT class=Apple-style-span
color=#000000>[If] </FONT>"permission to deposit in a University
repository" could be claimed as a re-use right, in which case all Green
University OA was by definition libre. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Some think there needs to be a license to access any item on the web. If
so, trillions of Web items that are freely accessed daily are in need of
licenses.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Yes, logically speaking, "free online access" could be defined as a "re-use
right". Do you think that would clarify matters? Do you think it would help
generate (1) more free online access, or (2) more free online access + various
other re-use rights?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>("Re-use" rights could also be re-defined as various free online use
rights: Do you think that would help anything?)</DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; FONT-SIZE: medium"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV class=AppleOriginalContents>
<DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">3. Gratis OA is a necessary condition for
Libre OA.</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote> </BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; FONT-SIZE: medium"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV class=AppleOriginalContents>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">I would agree, although without operational
definitions I cannot be sure</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I'm grateful for that.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>(On the limitations of "operational definitions," I again suggest
consulting Hume on the problem of induction.)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>.6. Global Gratis Green OA is within reach of Green OA
mandates (ID/OA + "Almost-OA" Button)</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">We now have
another concept "Almost OA" which again is not defined. And I assume that
the "OA" in ID/OA is not "Open Access" but "Optional
something-or-other".</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>"Almost OA" refers to individual access to papers that have been
deposited in an institutional repository and that are under publisher embargo.
During the embargo, only the metadata are visible to users and harvesters. But
the repository has an automated Button: Any individual user can paste his email
and click the Button which sends an automatic email-eprint-request to the
author, who can, with one click, authorize the automated emailing of one
copy.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This is not OA, just Almost OA. But again it is a practical compromise, in
order to make it possible for all institutions and funders to mandate
immediate-deposit, whether or not there is a publisher embargo on OA.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The rationale (not ideological, but practical) is that many institutions
and funders think they cannot adopt a Green OA mandate because publishers have
varying embargo periods. So they adopt policies to the effect that "authors must
deposit only if and when their publishers say they may do so." </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The ID/OA mandate (Immediate Deposit, Optional Access) is the way to
upgrade such policies (which are not mandates at all, but merely echo publisher
policies) by mandating immediate deposit in every case, even if they do not
mandate making the deposit OA immediately.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>What has to be kept in mind is that the only thing standing between the
status quo and universal Green Gratis OA (free online access) is author
keystrokes. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Sixty percent of journals (including almost all the top journals in almost
all fields -- not, notably, chemistry!) already recognize their author's right
to make their deposits OA immediately. Forty percent don't.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This means that once ID/OA is adopted universally today -- as it can
be, because it moots all publisher embargoes -- the result is 60% immediate
(Gratis) OA plus 40% Almost-OA.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The likely outcome (based again on Humean induction, and perhaps on Human
Nature in general) is that with all articles being at most only one keystroke
from being OA, 60% of them being OA already, and 40% of them being made
accessible individually at a cost of two keystrokes, the palpable benefits of OA
to both users and authors will soon make all embargoes die their inevitable and
well-deserved deaths!</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The big keystroke barrier is the deposit. Deposit mandates remove that
barrier. The last keystroke will take care of itself.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>To repeat: None of this is a definitional or ideological matter. It
is a practical matter: How to maximize access to refereed research, as soon as
possible, and as much as possible.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14. Irrelevant (a mixture of political assertions and
opinions-stated-as-facts).</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>No. They are practical strategic contingencies,
designed to generate OA as soon as possible. Some of them may be opinions, but
most are opinions that have been tested and proved to work.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>My suggestion to you Peter, is that you forget about definitions and think
about practical ways to accelerate the transition to the particular form of
Libre OA that you seek for your field.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>All I ask is that you respect the fact that the primary and most urgent
need of all fields is Gratis OA, that there is already a practical way to
generate that (Green OA mandates) and that the specific needs of your own field
should not be taken as grounds for disparaging the practical fulfillment of the
immediate needs of other fields.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>I get shouted down because asking factual questions is
uncomfortable.</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>Factual questions are more than welcome (once!).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><I>What is important, though, is not to keep asking the same
questions over and over, but to listen to the answers, and then add some
constructive and realistic practical suggestions of your own. </I></DIV>
<DIV><I><BR></I></DIV>
<DIV>Many of us would be much more willing to answer your questions, Peter, if
you showed some sign of having taken the replies on board, rather than just
continuing to repeat the questions.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate"> the OA
movement is not the Open License movement</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate"><BR></SPAN><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">I have never argued
that it was. I am arguing that unless Open Access is clearly defined then
huge amounts of energy and money are wasted and great confusion ensues.
The confusion is not of my making - I am trying to resolve it by asking
questions. </SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The problem to solve is how to maximize access to refereed research, as
soon as possible.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The problem is not with the definition of Gratis OA or Libre
OA. </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">This is science-wide
at least. I am also arguing on behalf of people outside academia. I am
arguing that many beneficial developments are stalled unless we have
BOAI-compliant OA. For example the next generation of search engines depend
on unrestricted access to full-text. (I will not use the term LibreOA until
I get a clear answer as to what it is in
practice.<BR></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>1. OA is wider than science.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>2. Many beneficial developments are stalled without Gratis OA, in all
fields.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>3. In some fields, further beneficial developments are stalled without
Libre OA (with whatever specific license you have in mind).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Now can we focus on realistic, practical remedies for 2? And remedies for 3
that are not at odds with remedies for 2?</DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate"><BR></SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">Here are some more
questions. They should have a simple YES/NO/factual
answer:<BR></SPAN><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">- many repositories
consist largely of metadata-only. Is metadata-only counted as Open
Access?</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>No</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>OA (Gratis and Green) pertains to the full text of peer-reviewed research
papers.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">- some repositories
have "ID/OA". (a) what does the O stand for?</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Optional: Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">(b) where is ID/OA
defined?</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html</A></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/494-guid.html</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Peter Suber's term for this is DDR: Dual Deposit Release (DDR):</DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-06.htm">http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-06.htm</A></DIV></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">(c) is ID/OA counted
as Open Access?</SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>ID/OA is a mandate. OA is a property of a paper.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Green OA mandates all have certain compromises because of publisher
policies. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>For this reason there are (2) no Immediate-OA + No-Embargo
mandates and (1) <I>no Libre Green mandates</I> (except with
opt-outs, which means no mandate, and hence little "compliance").</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The viable Green OA mandates are two:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>1. ID/OA</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>2. ID/OA plus Copyright Reservation, with opt-out permitted for copyright
reservation but not for deposit.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In contrast, "Deposit if and when your publisher allows" is not a mandate
at all.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Finch/RCUK have lately proposed what looks like a Libre Gold OA mandate,
but on closer inspection, it has profound flaws, apparently unanticipated by the
drafters of the policy -- flaws that make it extremely unlikely that it is
viable unless it they are promptly corrected:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Finch/RCUK mandate that the RCUK author is no longer allowed (sic) to
publish in a journal that offers neither (i) Libre (CC-BY) hybrid Gold OA nor
(ii) Green OA with a maximum embargo of 6 months (12 for EHRC and ESRC).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Finch/RCUK mandate that if the author chooses to publish in a subscription
journal that offers both Libre (CC-BY) hybrid Gold OA and 6/12 Green OA, the
author must pay for the Libre Gold rather than just provide Green. (Finch/RCUK
offer "block grants" re-directed from research funds to pay for Libre Gold
OA.)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>RCUK's two profound, unanticipated flaws are that</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 40px; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 0px"
class=webkit-indent-blockquote>
<DIV class=AppleOriginalContents>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>(1) RCUK's promise of extra payment for Libre (CC-BY)
Gold OA, over and above world-wide subscription revenues, is likely to induce
most or all subscription journals to offer a paid Gold OA option.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=AppleOriginalContents>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=AppleOriginalContents>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>(2) RCUK's forbidding authors to publish in a
journal that does not offer either Libre (CC-BY) Gold OA or 6/12 Green is
likely to those subscription journals that hesitate to offer Libre
(CC-BY) Gold OA to offer Gratis Gold OA and to extend their Green embargoes to
RCUK-impermissible limits, so that RCUK authors must pay for Gold (with or
without the help of the RCUK "block grants") in order to be able to
fulfill the RCUK immediate deposit requirement -- otherwise they cannot
publish in their chosen journal at all.</DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=AppleOriginalContents>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>
<DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>This policy is not only likely to generate an RCUK author revolt, with
confusion and non-compliance because of the constraints on journal choice and
the obligation to pay publishers extra for Gold out of scarce research funds
rather than providing cost-free Green -- but if adopted it will also hurt Green
OA mandates in the rest of the world, because of the incentive to subscription
publishers worldwide to adopt long Green OA embargoes in order to increase
hybrid Gold revenues from the UK. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The UK only produces 6% of the world's published research. Even if it can
afford to pay extra for Libre (CC-BY) hybrid Gold OA out of its research
funds, over and above what UK institutions are paying for subscriptions, it is
not clear that the rest of the world, producing the remaining 94% of published
research, can afford to do that for Libre (CC-BY) hybrid Gold OA --
nor that it would want to, even if it could, instead of just mandating cost-free
Gratis Green OA, while subscriptions are paying in full for the costs of
publication.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">(d) is this concept
defined by a community process?<BR></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I am not sure what you mean: Are you asking whether OA policy on
the part of institutions and funders is "defined" by a community process?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'd say sometimes, like many policies (good and bad), it is a top-down
decision, with varying degrees of community consultation. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>There seems to have been little consultation of the UK research community
in the case of the latest RCUK policy.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>In contrast, there was a great deal of community consultation in the case
of the 2004 UK Parliamentary Select Committee recommendation to mandate Green
OA, as well as in the EC policy, in response to an EC petition, and even moreso
in the US, where both the FRPAA and President Obama's Office of Science and
Technology have been doing extensive community consultations. Harvard's
copyright reservation policy was the result of a faculty consensus, and a few
other universities have followed the same model. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But top/down policies can be well-received by researchers too, if they are
beneficial ones. Such was the case at Southampton ECS, the first Green OA
mandate of all, highly successful and well received, and since adopted by many
others. So too with the Liege model mandate, an improvement on Southampton's
(because of the link to performance assessment and the integration with funder
mandates), likewise highly successful and well received, and since being
adopted by others.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">- Under what
circumstances can a "green-created" document be copied from a repository? Or
is it "Open Access" only when the reader has access to the
Internet?<BR></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It can be copied by any user, including machines, because it is Gratis --
free online -- but it cannot be re-published: That would be Libre OA.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Gratis OA means free online access, including reading, linking,
downloading, printing, storing, and data-mining locally (as well as harvesting,
inverting and indexing of navigation and research by Google Scholar and
countless other search engines, none of whichseem to feel that they need a Libre
OA license to do so!)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote><SPAN
style="BORDER-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate">- If only part of the
community has access to a document in a repository (as in Ghent and many
other repositories) is this document counted as Open
Access?<BR></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR></DIV>If it is not online free for all, it is not Gratis OA.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Stevan Harnad</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></SPAN></BODY></HTML>