<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 11.00.9600.16476"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=586221115-12122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I agree completely that 'green' and 'gold' (however tightly or
loosely defined) are the means, not the end</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=586221115-12122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=586221115-12122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an
unnecessarily tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as
you put it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read
them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=586221115-12122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial><BR>Sally</FONT></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 lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr 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>Jan
Velterop<BR><B>Sent:</B> 12 December 2013 13:44<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access
List (Successor of AmSci)<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly
CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI definition
is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you navigate the ocean of
politics and vested interests of science publishing, you need to tack sometimes
to make progress against the wind. That's permissible, even necessary. But it
doesn't change the intended destination on which a good sailor keeps his focus.
If that's religion, anything is. (Which may be the case :-)). </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal.
Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall
course needed to reach the destination. <BR><BR>In the larger picture, OA
itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of optimal scholarly knowledge
exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But that's a different discussion, I
think</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Jan Velterop
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, "Sally Morris" <<A
href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 11.00.9600.16476">
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=618205811-12122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice
by adhering so rigidly to tight definitions. A more relaxed focus on the
end rather than the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose
benefit it is supposed to exist</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=618205811-12122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=618205811-12122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Sally</FONT></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: <A
href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> <A
href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> [<A
href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>David Prosser<BR><B>Sent:</B> 12 December 2013
08:37<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access List (Successor of
AmSci)<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises
CredibilityofBeall's List<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open Access
Initiative to show that re-use was an integral part of the original definition
of open access and not some later ('quasi-religeous') addition as Sally avers.
And by doing so he is betraying some type of religious zeal? </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>One of the interesting aspect of the open access debate has been the
language. Those who argue against OA have been keen to paint OA
advocates as 'zealots', extremists, and impractical idealists. I've
always felt that such characterisation was an attempt to mask the paucity of
argument.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>David</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT: medium Helvetica; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT: medium Helvetica; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT: medium Helvetica; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT: medium Helvetica; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT: medium Helvetica; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT: medium Helvetica; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT: medium Helvetica; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT: medium Helvetica; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><SPAN
class=Apple-style-span
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); FONT: medium Helvetica; ORPHANS: 2; WIDOWS: 2; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><BR></DIV>
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"><BR></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On 11 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Sally Morris wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 11.00.9600.16428">
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=904442822-11122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I actually think that J-C's response illustrates very
clearly how OA has been mistaken for a religion, with its very own
'gospel'. This, IMHO, is part of its problem!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=904442822-11122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=904442822-11122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Sally</FONT></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: <A
href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> <A
href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> [<A
href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Jean-Claude Guédon<BR><B>Sent:</B> 10 December 2013
15:26<BR><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</A><BR><B>Subject:</B>
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility ofBeall's
List<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>In response to Sally, I would remind her that re-use was part of
the original BOAI declaration. Scholars and teachers need more than
eye-contact with articles. So, this is not a secondary point. <BR><BR>The
immediacy issue concerns deposit; it is simply a pragmatic and obvious
point: capturing an article at time of acceptance is optimal for exposure
and circulation of information. If the publisher does not allow public
exposure and imposes an embargo - thus slowing down the circulation of
knowledge -, the private request button allows for eye contact, at least.
This button solution is not optimal, but it will do on a pragmatic scale so
long as it is needed to circumvent publishers' tactics.<BR><BR>Cost savings
are not part of BOAI; it is a request by administrators of research centres
and their libraries. This said, costs of OA publishing achieved by a
platform such as Scielo are way beneath the prices practised by commercial
publishers (including non-profit ones). And it should become obvious that if
you avoid 45% profit rates, you should benefit.<BR><BR>The distinction
between "nice" and "nasty" publishers is of unknown origin and I would not
subscribe to it. More fundamentally, we should ask and ask again
whether scientific publishing is meant to help scientific research, or the
reverse. Seen from the former perspective, embargoes appear downright
absurd.<BR><BR>As for why OA has not been widely accepted now, the answer is
not difficult to find: researchers are evaluated; the evaluation, strangely
enough, rests on journal reputations rather than on the intrinsic quality of
articles. Researchers simply adapt to this weird competitive environment as
best they can, and do not want to endanger their career prospects in any
way. As a result, what counts for them is not how good their work is, but
rather <B>where</B> they can publish it. Open Access, by stressing a return
to intrinsic quality of work, implicitly challenges the present competition
rules. As such, it appears at best uncertain or even threatening to
researchers under career stress. So long as evaluation rests on journal
titles, the essential source of power within scientific publishing will rest
with the major international publishers. They obviously believe research was
invented to serve them!<BR><BR>The interesting point about mega journals,
incidentally, is that they are not really journals, but publishing
platforms. Giving an impact factor to PLoS One is stupid: citation cultures
vary from discipline to discipline, and the mix of disciplines within PLoS
One varies with time. Doing a simple average of the citations of the whole
is methodologically faulty: remember that scientists in biomed disciplines
quote about four times as much as mathematicians. What if, over a certain
period of time, the proportion of mathematical articles triples for whatever
reason? The raw impact factor will go down. Does this mean anything in terms
of quality? Of course not!<BR><BR>Jean-Claude Guédon<BR><BR>Le mardi 10
décembre 2013 à 13:36 +0000, Sally Morris a écrit :
<BLOCKQUOTE type="CITE">At the risk (nay, certainty) of being pilloried by
OA conformists, let me say that – whatever ithe failings of his article –
I thank Jeffrey Beall for raising some fundamental questions which are
rarely, if ever, addressed.<BR><BR> <BR><BR>I would put them under
two general
headings:<BR><BR> <BR><BR>1)
What is the objective of OA?<BR><BR> <BR><BR>I originally understood
the objective to be to make scholarly research articles, in some form,
accessible to all those who needed to read them. Subsequent
refinements such as 'immediately', 'published version' and 'free to reuse'
may have acquired quasi-religious status, but are surely secondary to
this main objective.<BR><BR> <BR><BR>However, two other, financial,
objectives (linked to each other, but not to the above) have gained
increasing prominence. The first is the alleged cost saving (or at
least cost shifting). The second - more malicious, and originally
(but no longer) denied by OA's main proponents - is the undermining of
publishers' businesses. If this were to work, we may be sure the
effects would not be choosy about 'nice' or 'nasty'
publishers.<BR><BR> <BR><BR>2)
Why hasn't OA been widely adopted by now?<BR><BR> <BR><BR>If – as we
have been repetitively assured over many years – OA is self-evidently the
right thing for scholars to do, why have so few of them done so
voluntarily? As Jeffrey Beall points out, it seems very curious that
scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to adopt a model which is
supposedly preferable to the existing one.<BR><BR> <BR><BR>Could it
be that the monotonous rantings of the few and the tiresome debates about
the fine detail are actually confusing scholars, and may even be putting
them off? Just asking ;-)<BR><BR> <BR><BR>I don't disagree
that the subscription model is not going to be able to address the
problems we face in making the growing volume of research available to
those who need it; but I'm not convinced that OA (whether Green,
Gold or any combination) will either. I think the solution, if there
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR><SPAN>GOAL
mailing list</SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A></SPAN><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>