<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>SHP See: <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:12px"><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1092-I-dont-want-free-online-access-I-want-free-online-access-with-re-use-rights%21.html" style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:12px" target="_blank">I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!</a></b></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I can't let this torrent of hypotheticals and suppositions stand<br><br></div><div>This includes completely misleading statements such as:<br><br>"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote>
<em>SH rebuttal : But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are near-useless...</em></blockquote>"near-useless" is SH's judgment. He has no evidence for this and it's simply catstrophically wrong… My research on 15-20% of the literature is not "near-useless" and this will become clear in the next 1-2 months<br>
</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div>Here's the full context of which PM-R has quoted a fragment, ignoring all the rest, and thereby missing the point entirely. Readers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions:</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="" style="font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">"I don't want <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/885-Open-Access-Gratis-and-Libre.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)">free online access</a>: I want free online access with <a href="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#36.Re-Use" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)">re-use rights</a>!<blockquote>
<em>But we don't even have free online access yet...</em></blockquote>"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em>But free online access is <u>part</u> of free online access with re-use rights...</em></blockquote>
"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em>But free online access is already within immediate reach and free online access with re-use rights is not...</em></blockquote>
"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em><strong>But free online access today will pave the way for free online access with re-use rights tomorrow...</strong></em></blockquote>
"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em>But re-use rights to only a fragment of the research in a field are near-useless...</em></blockquote>"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote>
<em>But publishers allowing authors to provide free online access and re-use rights can immediately be undercut by free-riding rival publishers; publishers allowing authors to provide free online access alone cannot...</em></blockquote>
"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em>But publishers will sooner allow authors to provide free online access than allow them to provide free online access with re-use rights…</em></blockquote>
"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em>But institutions and funders can sooner <a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)">mandate</a> free online access than free online access with re-use rights…</em></blockquote>
"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em>But all non-subscribing users need free online access; not all or even most or many users need re-use rights...</em></blockquote>
"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em>But all authors already want all non-subscribing users to have immediate free online access; not all or even most or many authors know or care about re-use rights yet...</em></blockquote>
"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em>But free online access with re-use rights today entails paying publishers even more, over and above uncancellable subscriptions, out of scarce research funds, whereas free online access entails no extra cost...</em></blockquote>
"I don't want free online access: I want free online access with re-use rights!"<blockquote><em>But free online access is better, even if free online access with re-use rights is best...</em></blockquote>"I don't want the better: I want the best!"<blockquote>
<em><strong>But the better is already <a href="https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=grasp+OR+libre+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)">within reach</a> and the best is not...</strong></em></blockquote>
"I don't want the better: I want the best!"</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div> <b>Stevan Harnad</b></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>I am starting right now to mine the bioscience literature. BOAI #openaccess is somewhere around 15-20 percent of currently published bioscience. That is enormously valuable as it stands. SH may describe my research as "near-useless" but I can extract high-quality publishable science, and I intend to publish it if it achieves a useful scientific gain. There are MANY cases where comprehensiveness is not required. <br>
<br></div><div>Here are some of the things I and colleagues intend to do - they are NOT "near-useless"<br><br></div><div>* compiling a vocabulary. This is of enormous value in nearly every field. 20% will contain all the commonly used vocabulary. The value of the long-tail is not critical in most fields<br>
<br></div><div>* building a natural language toolkit. I have done this and it is widely used . I do not need the whole literature to do this.<br><br>* creating a corpus for the community to use as a reference. This is extremely useful and has been plagued in the past by rights issues<br>
<br></div><div>* extracting information from diagrams and figures.<br><br></div><div>* building reference data. My group has built a system with half the world's published crystallographic data (200,000 structures) . For many purposes - docking drugs into enzymes, building nanomaterials , supporting Quantum mechanics calculations - it's essentially as valuable as the complete literature.<br>
<br></div><div>* reference data. Enormously valuable. <br></div><div><br></div><div>It is a great pity that Open Access has become embroiled in personal crusades rather than constructive discussion and accurate opinions.<br>
<br></div><div>My research on 15-20% of the literature is not "near-useless" and this will become clear in the next 1-2 months</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>