Stevan, 

You said:

"I think it is clear what the research community wants and needs, and has 
been clear all along: access to (refereed) research journal articles (and 
not just for those at subscribing institutions)."

So nothing has changed since 1999? I'm with Jan Velterop on this one. 
Ultimately the idea of open access is about the value of scientific and 
humanities literature, and how we might use it. The definition of the 
phrase 'digital library' means something quite different to a specialist 
in informatics, and it is their perspective which represents the way 
forward. 

You did not take on board the suggestion of taking a normative approach to 
open access questions. The current difficulties arise in part from the 
involvement in the discussion of special interest groups, whose principal 
aims are best served (they think) by the retention of as much as possible 
of the way things used to be done. The wrangling over definitions has been 
about accommodating their interests, not about promoting open access.

Best wishes, 

Philip Hunter
<[log in to unmask]>
  
Quoting Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>:

> 
> On Sep 2, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Philip Hunter <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:
> 
> > Stevan, 
> > 
> > *What OA Needs Is More Action, Not More Definition*
> > 
> > No, I don't think 'more action' is the answer. I think we would do 
better
> to 
> > reframe the idea of open access *as it should be* in the current
> environment, 
> > which is a quite different environment to the one in which the idea 
was
> created. 
> > That alone will clarify a lot of matters.  
> > 
> > Instead of wrestling with abstract notions and the shades and degrees 
of
> open 
> > access which have come to be part of the conversation, it might be 
better
> to 
> > adopt a Rawlsian normative approach, in which we define what the 
community
> wants 
> > and could agree on, and then work out the practicalities of how to get
> there.
> 
> Philip,
> 
> I think what you have described is exactly what has been going on, 
aimlessly,
> for at least 10 years: wrangling about definitions.
> 
> Yet I think it is clear what the research community wants and needs, and 
has
> been clear all along: access to (refereed) research journal articles 
(and not
> just for those at subscribing institutions).
> 
> And we know how to provide that access: make the articles accessible 
free for
> all (OA) on the web (e.g., in instutional repositories).
> 
> And we know how to ensure that researchers provide that access: their
> institutions and funders mandate (require) making the articles 
accessible
> free for all (OA) on the web
> 
> The practicalities are not only worked out, but are being successfully 
put
> into practice by a growing number of institutions and funders.
> 
> The only thing left to do is to get all institutions and funders to put 
them
> into practice, by mandating OA.
> 
> Not to keep wrangling about definitions for yet another decade.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Stevan
> 
> > 
> > Best regards, 
> > 
> > Philip Hunter
> > 
> > <[log in to unmask]>  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>:
> > 
> >> *What OA Needs Is More Action, Not More Definition*
> >> 
> >> For the record: I renounce (and have long renounced) the original 
2002
> BOAI
> >> (and BBB) definition of Open Access
> >> <http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read>(OA) (even though I 
was
> >> one of the original co-drafters and co-signers of BOAI) in favour of 
its
> >> 2008
> >> revision *(sic)* as Gratis OA (free online access) and Libre OA
> >> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html> 
(free
> >> online access plus certain re-use rights, e.g., CC-BY).
> >> 
> >> The original BOAI definition was improvised. Over a decade of 
subsequent
> >> evidence, experience and reflection have now made it clear that this
> first
> >> approximation in 2002 was needlessly over-reaching and (insofar as 
Green
> OA
> >> self-archiving was concerned) incoherent (except if we were prepared 
to
> >> declare almost all Green OA — which was and still is by far the 
largest
> >> and
> >> most reachable body of OA — as not being OA!). The original 
BOAI/BBB
> >> definition has since also become an obstacle to the growth of (Green,
> >> Gratis) OA as well as a point of counterproductive schism and 
formalism
> in
> >> the OA movement that have not been to the benefit of OA (but to the
> benefit
> >> of the opponents of OA, or to the publishers that want to ensure -- 
via
> >> Green OA embargoes -- that the only path to OA should be one that
> preserves
> >> their current revenue streams: Fool's Gold OA
> >> <https://www.google.com/webhp?
> > tbm=blg&gws_rd=ssl#q=harnad+fool's+gold+&tbm=blg>
> >> ).
> >> 
> >> I would like to agree with Richard Poynder that OA needs some sort of
> >> "authoritative" organization -- but of whom should that authoritative
> >> organization consist? My inclination is that it should be the 
providers
> and
> >> users of the OA research itself, namely peer-reviewed journal article
> >> authors, their institutions and their funders. Their “definition” 
of
> OA
> >> would certainly be authoritative.
> >> 
> >> Let me close by emphasizing that I too see Libre OA as desirable and
> >> inevitable. But my belief (and it has plenty of supporting evidence) 
is
> >> that the only way to get to Libre OA is for all institutions and 
funders
> to
> >> mandate (and provide) Gratis Green OA first — not to quibble or
> squabble
> >> about the BOAI/BBB “definition” of OA, or their favorite flavours 
of
> >> Libre
> >> OA licenses.
> >> 
> >> My only difference with Paul Royster is that the primary target for 
OA is
> >> peer-reviewed journal articles, and for that it is not just 
repositories
> >> that are needed, but Green OA mandates from authors’ institutions 
and
> >> funders.
> >> 
> >> *P.S. *To forestall yet another round of definitional wrangling: Even 
an
> >> effective Gratis Green OA mandate requires some compromises, namely, 
if
> >> authors elect to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, they 
need
> >> merely deposit the final, refereed, revised draft in their 
institutional
> >> repository immediately upon acceptance for publication -- and set the
> >> access as "restricted access" instead of OA during the (allowable)
> embargo.
> >> The repository's automated email copy-request Button
> >> <https://www.google.com/webhp?
tbm=blg&gws_rd=ssl#q=harnad+Button&tbm=blg>
> >> will
> >> allow any user to request and any author to provide a single copy for
> >> research purposes during the embargo with one click each. (We call 
this
> >> compromise "Almost-OA." It is a workaround for the 40% of journals 
that
> >> embargo Gratis Green OA; and this too is a necessary first step on 
the
> road
> >> to 100% immediate Green Gratis OA and onward. I hope no one will now 
call
> >> for a formal definition of "Almost-OA" before we can take action on
> >> mandating OA...)
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Stevan Harnad 
<[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Stephen Downes <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Some really important discussion here. In particular, I would argue
> (with
> >>> this article) that  the insistence on CC-by (which allows commercial
> >> reuse)
> >>> comes not from actual proponents of open access, but by commercial
> >>> publishers promoting their own interests.
> http://www.downes.ca/post/62708
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Actually, it’s much more complicated than that. Journal publishers
> (both
> >>> commercial and learned-society) have conflicts of interest with 
Green OA
> >> --
> >>> both Gratis (free for all online) and Libre (free for all online 
*plus*
> >>> re-use rights, especially commercial re-use rights).
> >>> 
> >>> And, on top of that, there are impatient researchers militating
> >>> uncompromisingly for Libre OA in certain fields that would 
especially
> >>> benefit from Libre OA re-use rights.
> >>> 
> >>> And there are the Gold OA publishers that want to promote their 
product
> by
> >>> lionizing the benefits of Libre OA and deprecating Gratis OA, 
whether
> from
> >>> author self-archiving (Gratis Green) or rival Gold OA  and hybrid
> >>> publishers (Gratis Gold).
> >>> 
> >>> And often, alas, the library community, including SPARC, does not
> >>> understand either, and needlessly complicates things wtill further.
> >>> 
> >>> Let me simplify: Libre OA (free for all online *plus* re-use rights) 
is
> >>> Gratis OA (free for all online) PLUS re-use rights. Libre OA asks 
for
> MORE
> >>> than Gratis OA. Hence Libre OA faces far more obstacles than Gratis 
OA.
> >>> 
> >>> *Yet we are nowhere near having even Gratis OA yet:* Around 30% in 
most
> >>> fields, especially during the first 12 months of publication (mainly
> >>> because of publisher embargoes — on Gratis OA — but also because 
of
> >>> (groundless) author fears).
> >>> 
> >>> *That’s why Gratis Green OA mandates are urgently needed from
> >> institutions
> >>> and funders, worldwide.*
> >>> 
> >>> Once we have 100% Gratis Green OA globally, all the rest will come:
> >>> Fair-Gold OA and all the re-use rights researchers want and need.
> >>> 
> >>> But as long as we keep fussing and focussing pre-emptively and
> >>> compulsively on Libre OA re-use rights (and Fool’s Gold OA) 
instead of
> >>> mandating Gratis Green, we will keep getting next to no OA at all, 
of
> >>> either kind, as now.
> >>> 
> >>> And all it requires is a tiny bit of thought to see why this is so. 
(But
> >>> for some reason, many people prefer to fulminate instead, about the
> >>> relative virtues of Gratis vs Libre, Green vs Gold, and CC-BY vs
> >>> non-commercial CC-BY.)
> >>> 
> >>> Let’s hope that the institutions and funding agencies will get 
their
> >> acts
> >>> together soon. At least 20 years of OA have already been needlessly
> >> lost…
> >>> 
> >>> Dixit,
> >>> 
> >>> Stevan Harnad
> >>> Exceedingly Weary Archivangelist
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> *From:* Repositories discussion list [
> >>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> ] *On Behalf Of *Richard Poynder
> >>> *Sent:* September-01-14 8:20 AM
> >>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> >>> *Subject:* The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster, Coordinator of
> >>> Scholarly Communications, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> >>> 
> >>> Paul Royster is proud of what he has achieved with his institutional
> >>> repository. Currently, it contains 73,000 full-text items, of which 
more
> >>> than 60,000 are freely accessible to the world. This, says Royster,
> makes
> >>> it the second largest institutional repository in the US, and it
> receives
> >>> around
> >>> 500,000 downloads per month, with around 30% of those going to
> >>> international users.
> >>> 
> >>> Unsurprisingly, Royster always assumed that he was in the vanguard 
of
> the
> >>> OA movement, and that fellow OA advocates attached considerable 
value to
> >>> the work he was doing.
> >>> 
> >>> All this changed in 2012, when he attended an open access meeting
> >>> organised by SPARC in Kansas City. At that meeting, he says, he was
> >>> startled to hear SPARC announce to delegates that henceforth the 
sine
> qua
> >>> non of open access is that a work has to be made available with a CC 
BY
> >>> licence or equivalent attached.
> >>> 
> >>> After the meeting Royster sought to clarify the situation with 
SPARC,
> >>> explaining the problems that its insistence on CC BY presented for
> >>> repository managers like him, since it is generally not possible to 
make
> >>> self-archived works available on a CC BY basis (not least because 
the
> >>> copyright will invariably have been assigned to a publisher).
> >>> Unfortunately, he says, his concerns fell on deaf ears.
> >>> 
> >>> The only conclusion Royster could reach is that the OA movement no
> longer
> >>> views what he is doing as open access. As he puts it, “[O]ur work 
in
> >>> promulgating Green OA (which normally does not convey re-use rights) 
and
> >>> our free-access publishing under non-exclusive permission-to-publish
> >> (i.e.,
> >>> non-CC) agreements was henceforth disqualified.”
> >>> 
> >>> If correct, what is striking here is the implication that 
institutional
> >>> repositories can no longer claim to be providing open access.
> >>> 
> >>> In fact, if one refers to the most frequently cited definitions of 
open
> >>> access one discovers that what SPARC told Royster would seem to be 
in
> >>> order. Although it was written before the Creative Commons licences 
were
> >>> released, for instance, the definition of open access authored by 
those
> >> who
> >>> launched the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) in 2001 clearly
> seems
> >>> to describe the same terms as those expressed in the CC BY licence.
> >>> 
> >>> What this means, of course, is that green OA does not meet the
> >>> requirements of the BOAI — even though BOAI cited green OA as one 
of
> its
> >>> “complementary strategies” for achieving open access.
> >>> 
> >>> Since most of the OA movement’s claimed successes are green 
successes
> >> this
> >>> is particularly ironic. But given this, is it not pure pedantry to 
worry
> >>> about what appears to be a logical inconsistency at the heart of the 
OA
> >>> movement? No, not in light of the growing insistence that only CC BY
> will
> >>> do. If nothing else, it is alienating some of the movement’s best
> allies
> >> —
> >>> people like Paul Royster for instance.
> >>> 
> >>> “I no longer call or think of myself as an advocate for ‘open
> >> access,’
> >>> since the specific definition of that term excludes most of what we 
do
> in
> >>> our repository,” says Royster. “I used to think the term meant
> ‘free
> >> to
> >>> access, download, and store without charge, registration, log-in,
> etc.,’
> >>> but I have been disabused of that notion.”
> >>> 
> >>> For that reason, he says, “My current attitude regarding OA is to 
step
> >>> away and leave it alone; it does some good, despite what I see as 
its
> feet
> >>> of clay. I am not ‘against’ it, but I don't feel inspired to 
promote
> a
> >>> cause that makes the repositories second-class members.”
> >>> 
> >>> How could this strange state of affairs have arisen? And why has it 
only
> >>> really become an issue now, over a decade after the BOAI definition 
was
> >>> penned?
> >>> 
> >>> More here:
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-open-access-interviews-
paul-
> > royster.html
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > This mail sent through http://www.easynetdial.co.uk
> 
> 




---------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through http://www.easynetdial.co.uk