Mike Taylor writes (on Nature Blog):
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/key-questions-in-the-uks-shift-to-open-access-research.html#comment-8158
"BOAI intended OA to mean much more than just the freedom to read an
article online, and the term is used in this stronger sense by most of
the people writing about open access today.... That’s not to say that
“gratis OA” is not a good thing. Of course, it is. But..."
The original BOAI statement -- drafted online collectively by the
original BOAI 2001 attendees, but authored mostly by Peter Suber --
was something new that we were improvising as we went along. It became
clear, as subsequent years went by, that practical developments since
2001 necessitated some rethinking, revising and updating.
The revised, refined definition was formulated in 2008.
I might add that I have been working toward (what we eventually
dubbed) "OA" since the early 1990's, and for me the first and foremost
goal had always been (and still is) immediate, permanent, toll-free
online access to 100% of peer-reviewed journal articles, i.e., "Gratis
OA". I also have to note that we did not have 100% Gratis OA in 1994,
when I made my "Subversive Proposal" for providing it, and we still do
not have 100% Gratis OA today, almost two decades later, even though
it is fully within reach. We are only at about 20%, except where it is
mandated, in which case it jumps to 60% and then climbs steadily
toward 100% (if the mandate is effectively formulated and
implemented!).
Now, to ask for Libre OA (Gratis OA plus some re-use rights, not yet
fully agreed upon) today is to ask for more than Gratis OA at a time
when authors are not even providing Gratis OA (except if mandated).
Libre OA also brings with it numerous unresolved complications, among
them the fact that although all authors want users to have free access
to their papers (even though they don't bother -- or dare -- to
provide it unless mandated), not all authors want to grant users
further re-use rights,; nor is it agreed yet what those further re-use
rights should be. In addition, publishers, the majority of whom have
given their green light to Gratis OA, are far from agreeing to Libre
OA.
Yes, further re-use rights are important, and desirable, in many (not
all) cases. But they are even harder to agree on and provide than
Gratis OA, and we have not yet even managed to mandate that in
anywhere sufficient numbers. And access itself -- "mere" access -- is
not just important, but essential, and urgent, for all peer-reviewed
research.
Yet 100% Gratis OA is fully within reach (and has been for years): All
institutions and funders need do is grasp it, by mandating it.
Instead, we have been over-reaching for years now -- for Libre OA, for
Gold OA, for copyright reform, for publishing reform, for peer review
reform -- and not even getting what is already fully within reach.
http://bit.ly/OAveReach
So I appreciate your point, Mike, that getting much more than Gratis
Green OA would be better than getting just Gratis Green OA.
But I also think that it's time to stop letting the best get in the
way of the better: Let's forget about Libre and Gold OA until we have
managed to mandate Green Gratis OA universally.
After that, all the other good things we seek will come into reach,
and will come to pass.
But not if we keep trying, like Stephen Leacock's horseman, to ride
off in all directions, while we just keep getting next to nowhere…
Stevan Harnad
|
