<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Sally Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">I don't deny that re-use (e.g. text mining) is a valuable
attribute of OA for some scholars; interestingly, however, it is rarely if
ever mentioned in surveys which ask scholars for their own unprompted definition
of OA. That suggests to me that it is not fundamental in most scholars'
minds.</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's primarily because many publishers ban in with legal contracts. So it's not done. That's changing - OA publishers are very positive (BMC, PLOS ...). There's a chicken-and-egg. Forbid textmining => no tools developed => no use => assertions nobody wants it.<br>
<br></div><div>Also it is difficult to argue for something that is not widely deployed. Ask anyone in 1993 whether they want a (deliberately) fragile hypermedia system with a stupid name (Word - wide - Web) cooked up by a geek in CERN and they'd look in amazement. 1995 we believed in the web. <br>
<br></div><div>It'll be the same with TextMining. The STM publishers individually and severally have tried to advocate against it but - at least in UK - Hargreaves has overridden this. In April 2014 Hargreaves legislation will come in.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">The few responses to my original posting have all focused on
whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the
underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented
at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly
enough):</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">1) The focus of OA seems to be, to a
considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the
hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying
power'</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If an industry is pouring millions into lobbyists and systems to stop me and others developing TDM except under their complete control then, yes, I do regard it as a hostile act.<br>
<br></div><div>Do I want to destroy it? Not per se, but I want it to change. STM is about 25 years behind the rest of the world. The double-column sighted-human-only PDF is a disgrace in the electronic century. There is no ability to innovate technically, socially, economically, politically or organizationally. We are stuck in C20-stasis. <br>
<br></div><div>Every year that passes sees more pressure building up for change. Recent years suggest the industry is incapable of change so I predict that parts of it will crash heavily. Maybe some will adjust. <br><br></div>
<div>For me the industry adds very little positive value. Academics can manage authoring, peer-review, production. For me the typesetting is negative value. We should get rid of it. We cannot now even trust parts of the industry. What's left? A badge for the author and their institution. <br>
</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both
points?! ;-)</font></span><div class="im">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You can interpret my paragraphs however you wish. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div class="im"><div dir="ltr" align="left"> </div><br clear="all"></div></div></blockquote></div><br>-- <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
</div></div>