tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post2455531957126509033..comments2017-03-26T20:37:05.989+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?Richard Poynderhttps://plus.google.com/109680188903316748168noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-87146578530413447042013-07-08T08:19:29.371+00:002013-07-08T08:19:29.371+00:00Once OA reaches a certain level of saturation, it&...Once OA reaches a certain level of saturation, it&#39;s going to become progressively easier for most people to simply ignore non-open research. (We&#39;re already seeing that so some extent: when links are tweeted to papers of medium relevance, most readers just give up and do something else on meeting a paywall.)<br /><br />I certainly think we&#39;ll soon reach a point where enough work is OA that content-mining project stop frittering away time in negotiations with paywall providers, and just proceed with the material that&#39;s freely available to them.<br />Mike Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-71165330538255965992013-07-08T06:33:19.686+00:002013-07-08T06:33:19.686+00:00In the introduction to this piece I wrote, &quot;F...In the introduction to this piece I wrote, &quot;Few now doubt that OA is inevitable&quot;. <br /><br />On the Liblicense mailing list the publisher <a href="http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/anthony-watkinson/4/797/6a1" rel="nofollow">Anthony Watkinson</a> has expressed <a href="http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?A2=LIBLICENSE-L;8522ff89.1307" rel="nofollow">disagreement</a> with this statement.<br /><br />Watkinson says, &quot;My impression from conversations with librarians, publishers and scholars is that most now see OA as probably a default model and a primary model, but part of a mixed economy with purchase by users however organised continuing as part of the picture of scholarly communication for the foreseeable future.&quot;<br /><br />I assume Watkinson read my statement as a prediction that all scholarly publishing will become OA. This might indeed happen, but I was not predicting that we will inevitably see 100% OA, more that it will (as Watkinson himself anticipates) become the dominant model. How that is funded, of course, remains a huge issue.Richard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-47884181161178851732013-07-03T15:39:56.865+00:002013-07-03T15:39:56.865+00:00To both Mike &amp; Richard: I don&#39;t think the...To both Mike &amp; Richard:<br /><br />I don&#39;t think the problem is in what we name OA: The problem&#39;s getting researchers to provide it (not just bless it!)<br /><br />(I also don&#39;t think that people are put off from responding by a title! I think people don&#39;t respond to substantive points because they have not thought sufficiently deeply to make a substantive reply, or don&#39;t want to. That&#39;s also consistent with the fact that by now most researchers know about OA, most are in favour of it, but most still do not provide it! It&#39;s easier to have a superficial opinion than a substantive one, and easier to praise than to practise... But I believe mandates will at last fix all that -- as long as they are <i>effective</i> mandates.)Stevan Harnadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-31189200429964697632013-07-03T13:44:41.435+00:002013-07-03T13:44:41.435+00:00This seems like a good start to the series of inte...This seems like a good start to the series of interviews: Two of the most energised, committed, and articulate advocates for Open Access (but who belong to different generations of the OA movement) publicly delineating what they share in common and what separates them.<br /><br />One is, however, tempted to suggest that there is another broad point to make here. That is, that OA advocates have been outlining the points on which they agree and those on which they disagree for some 20 years now. Yet while they have finally succeeded in convincing the wider research community, research funders, and even publishers, of the merits of OA, the bad news (for OA advocates) could be that their continuing disagreement on terminology and strategy is allowing publishers to appropriate OA to their own ends, and recreate it in their own image. <br /><br />I cannot help but think that the situation would be different today if the OA movement had created an OA foundation, or some similar organisation, as I <a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2006/03/where-is-open-access-foundation.html" rel="nofollow">suggested they should</a> in 2006. (Stevan Harnad did support the idea by the way).<br /><br />But is my characterisation of the situation accurate or fair? Either way, I do hope I can persuade a publisher or two to provide some input into this discussion.Richard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-17366939484596935382013-07-03T08:19:31.798+00:002013-07-03T08:19:31.798+00:00Hi, Stevan. It&#39;s true that you have been calli...Hi, Stevan. It&#39;s true that <i>you</i> have been calling no-charge-to-read access by the term &quot;open access&quot; for some time (and advocating it, to great effect, for even longer). But that doesn&#39;t change the fact that your idiosyncratic use of the term &quot;open access&quot; is different from the way it&#39;s used by virtually everyone else.<br /><br />I suppose your comments look like dissertations in part because they come in multiple chapters and have titles. Don&#39;t just ask me -- others also find them difficult to engage with. Surely you&#39;ve noticed that they tend to have the effect of shutting down conversations rather than opening them up?<br /><br />To finish positively, there is a an important broad point to be made here: while it&#39;s true that you and I disagree on many points of terminology and strategy, our positions look indistinguishably close from the perspective of legacy publishers. We focus on the differences because those are more interesting to discuss than a sequence of &quot;Yes, I agree that everyone should have access&quot;. But that core assertion is at the heart of everything we&#39;re doing; and fundamentally at odds with the business model that still, stupidly, dominates academic publishing.Mike Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-48034777668329686462013-07-03T00:16:17.737+00:002013-07-03T00:16:17.737+00:00Hi, Mike, thanks for suggesting I should have call...Hi, Mike, thanks for suggesting I should have called what I&#39;ve been advocating for over 2 decades something other than OA -- but I guess it won&#39;t surprise you that I disagree!<br /><br />I don&#39;t quite see why you think of my responses to your responses to Richard&#39;s questions as &quot;dissertations&quot; -- they don&#39;t look to me any longer than your responses.<br /><br />But I was wondering whether your only point is terminological or you want to engage more substantively with what I was actually saying, as I did with what you were actually saying? <br /><br />After all, as you say in your comment following my responses to Richard&#39;s questions: we &quot;seem to disagree on virtually every detail of how to proceed towards OA&quot; -- and I definitely agree with you on that!Stevan Harnadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-71819127700633047432013-07-02T07:02:18.815+00:002013-07-02T07:02:18.815+00:00Hi, Stevan, good to hear from you. But don&#39;t y...Hi, Stevan, good to hear from you. But don&#39;t you think it would have been more polite to wait for Richard to get around to doing your interview before giving your answers?<br /><br />(In other words: I think your habit of posting dissertations in comment forms has a tendency to shut down discussion rather than catalysing it. We&#39;d likely make better progress if you&#39;d engage more with what people are actually saying rather than posting your own alternative article.)<br /><br />Anyway ...<br /><br />Yes, I&#39;m well aware of the history of the terms &quot;libre OA&quot; and &quot;gratis OA&quot;. I understand the distinction and why it&#39;s valuable. I also understand (as will anyone who reads it) that the original definition of the term OA explicitly limits its use to &quot;libre&quot;. What you and Peter did with those terms, however well intentioned, <i>did</i> contradict the original definitions.<br /><br />The thing that you call &quot;gratis OA&quot; is indeed an important and valuable thing. But we would all be much better off had you found a different term for it rather than co-opting the existing term &quot;open access&quot;, and thereby diluting its meaning. Then we and others could have had much clearer discussions of the relative importance of open access and zero-cost-to-read access without getting constantly mired in misunderstandings of what the terms mean.<br />Mike Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-7527709298607351062013-07-02T00:29:31.877+00:002013-07-02T00:29:31.877+00:00FIRST THINGS FIRST (2nd) MT: &quot;[W]e have to e...<b>FIRST THINGS FIRST</b> (2nd)<br /><br /><b>MT:</b> &quot;[W]e have to end to the childish notion that the value of a piece of research is dependent on what journal publishes it.&quot;<br /><br />Yes. But what it does depend on is the quality standards and track-record of the journal that publishes it. <br /><br /><b>MT:</b> <i>&quot;I do hope this year will see a decision made on how to implement the White House OSTP&#39;s OA recommendation, and I hope that it will elect to do this by expanding its own PubMed Central system rather than by acquiescing to land-grab attempts by either publishers (CHORUS) or libraries (SHARE).&quot;</i><br /><br />I hope OSTP will <i>not</i> elect to mandate direct deposit in institution-external repositories but will instead mandate institutional deposit (followed by automated institution-external harvesting, inporting or exporting, where desired). <br /><br />This will minimize publisher inteference (with embargoes and other constraints), engage institutions in monitoring and ensuring timely compliance with the mandate, and give institutions the incentive to adopt mandates of their own, for their non-funded output.<br /><br />CHORUS should certainly be rejected, and library SHARE only accepted if it&#39;s to make institutional OA repositories more interoperable, not to allow publishers to assume the function of Green OA access-provision or archiving.<br /><br /><b>MT:</b> <i>&quot;[Through Gold OA] we&#39;ll be able to save more than nine tenths of what we&#39;re spending now.&quot;</i><br /><br />True, but this will not happen through pre-emptive pre-Green <i>Fools-Gold</i>, only through <i>post-Green Fair-Gold</i>.<br /><br /><i>&quot;OA is cheaper, but that&#39;s not why it matters. What counts is not that it has lower cost, but that it has higher value.&quot;</i><br /><br />OA does not have lower or higher cost. OA (Open Access) is about access. What will have lower cost is post-Green Fair-Gold OA. <br /><br />But the real value of OA is in the access: OA maximizes research uptake, usage, applications, impact, productivity and progress, to the benefit fo research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, the R&amp;D industry, teachers, students, journalists, and the tax-paying public that funds the research.Stevan Harnadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-31951814768970171002013-07-02T00:25:41.025+00:002013-07-02T00:25:41.025+00:00FIRST THINGS FIRST (1st part) Mike Taylor is to b...<b>FIRST THINGS FIRST</b> (1st part)<br /><br />Mike Taylor is to be commended for his zeal, but there a few points on which I think he is very mistaken:<br /><br /><b>MT:</b> <i>&quot;Immeasurable confusion has resulted from people proposing alternative [definitions of OA] – either through ignorance or malice.&quot;</i><br /><br />There have definitely been attempted distortions of the definition of OA, from ignorance or malice, &quot;<a href="http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy-ab&amp;q=amsci+(%22delayed+OA%22+OR+%22delayed+open+access%22)&amp;oq=amsci+(%22delayed+OA%22+OR+%22delayed+open+access%22)&amp;gs_l=hp.3...98212.98883.1.100063.5.5.0.0.0.1.179.638.0j5.5.0...0.0...1c.1.18.psy-ab.P-MA5h7APVk&amp;pbx=1&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;bvm=bv.48572450,d.dmQ&amp;fp=8fb97374f1a52505&amp;biw=1168&amp;bih=790" rel="nofollow">Delayed OA</a>&quot; being perhaps the worst of them. (OA means <em>immediate, permanent f</em>ree online access.)<br /><br />But the original <a href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read" rel="nofollow">BOAI definition of OA</a> was <a href="http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html" rel="nofollow">elaborated</a> into two components or degrees -- not contradicted -- by Peter Suber and myself: free online access (Gratis OA) and free online access plus various re-use rights (Libre OA). <br /><br />Gratis OA is urgent, all research and researchers need it, and it&#39;s fully within reach (of mandates) already; Libre OA is not urgent, not all research and researchers need it, and it&#39;s not fully within reach already. <br /><br />Libre OA advocates have unfortunately delayed and complicated the progress of Gratis Green OA as surely as publishers have, by insisting pre-emptively on Libre Gold OA:<br /><br /><b>MT:</b> <i>&quot;Green articles in the RCUK sense can be encumbered by non-commercial clauses, stripping them of much of their value to the taxpayer, and can be delayed by embargoes of up to two years… So in the context of RCUK specifically, Green is virtually useless, and the only way to obtain actual open access is by paying for Gold. Which I don’t doubt is exactly what the publishers wanted. It&#39;s to RCUK&#39;s eternal shame that they rolled over and allowed this, after having made such a strong opening statement.&quot;</i><br /><br />The term &quot;non-commercial clauses&quot; here refers to Libre OA re-use rights. Green OA embargoes were ratcheted up by publishers because Finch/RCUK kept treating Green as if it were &quot;Delayed OA&quot; and because of Finch/RCUK&#39;s readiness to pay pre-emptively for Libre Gold OA. <br /><br />Green Gratis OA (free online access) is certainly not &quot;virtually useless,&quot; and embargoes can be surmounted by the institutional repository&#39;s facilitated eprint request Button. <br /><br />But this is the way Libre Gold advocates delay and complicate the progress of Gratis Green OA.<br /><br /><i>(cont&#39;d)</i>Stevan Harnadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.com
http://poynder.blogspot.com/feeds/2455531957126509033/comments/default
poynder.blogspot.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-13
29792
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:DMW3NKWRWEZHP2RRIPTYHKQ5V2WYZK43
<urn:uuid:7d9dd23a-06db-4c0b-bcd5-4ef04c0d6d47>
2017-03-30T16:34:10Z
172.217.7.129
sha1:A6A3FAHK5YI2W4LL72HE3RNI3BJBGJV4
<urn:uuid:a044df16-4552-4c45-b88c-72ce6ed22961>
http://poynder.blogspot.com/feeds/2455531957126509033/comments/default
response
<urn:uuid:740f7a5e-24d0-4824-833c-661f9a5e044f>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-233-31-227.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-13
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf