<!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 11.00.9600.16476"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 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 dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 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 class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 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 dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>2) It still seems curious to me (as to
Beall) that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour
which is considered be self-evidently beneficial to them</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both
points?! ;-)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=727560813-13122013><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:
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>Penny
Andrews<BR><B>Sent:</B> 12 December 2013 17:04<BR><B>To:</B> Global Open Access
List (Successor of AmSci)<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly
Compromises Credibility of Beall's List<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Sally, for many scholars (who do currently exist, not just in the
future) textmining is their main research activity. Open licensing
<SPAN></SPAN>to do that unimpeded isn't some theoretical paradise, it's
what they need right now to do their work.<BR><BR>On Thursday, December 12,
2013, Sally Morris wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><U></U>
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff 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><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff 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><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial><BR>Sally</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>Sally Morris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing,
West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>Email: <A
href="javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk');"
target=_blank>sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> <A
href="javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'goal-bounces@eprints.org');"
target=_blank>goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> [mailto:<A
href="javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'goal-bounces@eprints.org');"
target=_blank>goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>] <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>sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</A>> wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff 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><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT color=#0000ff
face=Arial>Sally</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>Sally Morris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing,
West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Arial>Email:
<A>sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR>
<FONT face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> <A>goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>
[<A>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
style="FONT-FAMILY: Helvetica; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; BORDER-SPACING: 0px"><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT: medium Helvetica; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT: medium Helvetica; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT: medium Helvetica; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT: medium Helvetica; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT: medium Helvetica; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT: medium Helvetica; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">
<DIV style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"><SPAN
style="WHITE-SPACE: normal; WORD-SPACING: 0px; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; FONT: medium Helvetica; LETTER-SPACING: normal; TEXT-INDENT: 0px">
<DIV
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word"></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>