<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><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 content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<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="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; 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>