On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:07 PM, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Stevan is not trying to achieve open access. (Although, admittedly, the > definition of open access is so much subject to revision, that it depends > on the day you > looked<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_access&offset=&limit=500&action=history> > what > it, or one of its flavours, actually means or can mean — for the avoidance > of doubt, my anchor point is the definition found > here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Open_Access_Initiative> > ). > > What Stevan is advocating is just gratis 'ocular' online access (no > machine-access, no text- or data-mining, no reuse of any sort — cross). If > that is the case, I have no beef with him. We're just on different ships to > different destinations which makes travelling in convoy impossible. The > destination of the ship I'm on was mapped out at the > BOAI<http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read> in > December 2001. I find it important to stay on course. The trouble arises > where he regards the course of the ship that I am on as a threat to the > course of his ship. That is misguided. > We are both trying to reach open access, but (to continue with Jan's nautical analogy) open access has a nearer and a further point of landfall. The nearer, already visible landfall is free online access (Gratis OA) and the further, not yet visible landfall is free online access plus re-use/re-publication rights. We have been meandering aimlessly, making no landfall at all, for at least 10 years. I am for steering toward the nearer, already visible and reachable landfall (free online access) rather than continuing instead to meander in search of the further landfall (free online access plus re-use/re-publication rights). In fact I predict that once we make the nearer landfall, the second one will turn out to be soon reachable thereafter *overland*, without having to set out to sea and sail half way around the world to try to find it. Of course we could take two ships, and yours, Jan, could keep trying to steer a course toward the farther landfall, leaving mine to head for the nearer shore. But that's where the nautical metaphor breaks down. Because (for example) if Green OA (and hence Green OA mandates) were to be * re-defined* as Green CC-BY, and Green CC-BY mandates, then my ship for getting me to the nearer landfall would be sunk -- or (figuratively) my nearer landfall would be teleported to your further landfall, and I'd be left meandering as long as you. And meanwhile, research and researchers would continue -- for no one knows how long -- to be denied the "ocular access" that has been my primary motivation for seeking OA for close to 20 years now. For the record: I am for, not against, both Gold OA and all the CC-BY authors and users want and need. But I am profoundly against anything that slows or impedes our voyage to the nearer landfall ("ocular access"). -- And that includes proposals to redefine "Green" as the further landfall. None of this will be remedied by definitions, one way or the other; only by practical policy and action -- to reach our respective landfalls. And also for the record: I have no objections to spending research money on purchasing Gold-CC-BY (even though I do happen to consider it premature, unnecessary and wasteful!). My objection is to spending research money on purchasing Gold-CC-BY *without first [effectively!] mandating Gratis Green OA self-archiving* -- or, worse, to mandating that researchers must choose to pay Gold-CC-BY, allowing them to choose cost-free Green only if Gold is not offered. (That is what the new RCUK policy wording currently states: let's hope it turns out not to be what it means.) Stevan Harnad On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:49, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > ** Cross-Posted ** > > This is a response to a proposal (by some individuals in the researcher > community) to raise the goalposts of Green OA self-archiving and Green OA > mandates from where they are now (free online access) to CC-BY (free online > access plus unlimited re-use and re-publication rights): > > 1. The goal-posts for Green OA self-archiving and Green OA mandates should > on no account be raised to CC-BY (free online access PLUS unlimited re-use > and re-publication rights). That would be an absolute disaster for Green OA > growth, Green OA mandate growth, and hence global OA growth (and hence > another triumph for the publisher lobby and double-paid hybrid-Gold CC-BY). > > 2. The fundamental practical reason why global Green Gratis OA (free > online access) is readily reachable is precisely because *it requires > only free online access and not more*. > > 3. That is also why 60% of journals endorse immediate, un-embargoed Green > OA today. > > 4. That is also why repositories' Almost-OA > Button<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>can tide over user needs during > any embargo for the remaining 40% of > journals. > > 5. "Upgrading" Green OA and Green OA mandates to requiring CC-BY would > mean that most journals would *immediately* adopt Green OA embargoes, and > their length would be years, not months. > > 6. It would also mean that emailing (or mailing) eprints would become > legally actionable, if the eprint was tagged and treated as CC-BY, thereby > doing in a half-century's worth of established scholarly practice. > > 7. And all because impatient ideology got the better of patient pragmatics > and realism, a few fields' urgent need for CC-BY was put ahead of all > fields' urgent need for free online access -- and another publisher lobby > victory was scored for double-paid hybrid Gold-CC-BY (hence simply > prolonging the worldwide status quo of mostly subscription publishing and > little OA). > > 8. The reason for all this is also absolutely transparent to anyone who is > not in the grip of an ideology, a single-minded impatience for CC-BY, or a > conflict of interest: If Green OA self-archiving meant CC-BY then any rival > publisher would immediately be licensed to free-ride on any subscription > journal's content, offering it at cut-rate price in any form, thereby > undercutting all chances of the original publisher recouping his costs: > Hence for all journal publishers that would amount to either ruin or a > forced immediate conversion to Gold CC-BY... > > 9. ...If publishers allowed Green CC-BY self-archiving by authors, and > Green CC-BY mandates by their institutions, without legal action. > > 10. But of course publishers would not allow the assertion of CC-BY by its > authors without legal action (and it is the fear of legal action that > motivates the quest for CC-BY!): > > 11. And the very real threat of legal action facing Green CC-BY > self-archiving by authors and Green CC-BY mandates by institutions (unlike > the bogus threat of legal action against Gratis Green self-archiving and > Gratis Green mandates) would of course put an end to authors' providing > Green OA and institutions' mandating Green OA. > > 12. In theory, funders, unlike institutions, can mandate whatever they > like, since they are paying for the research: But if a funder Gold OA > mandate like Finch/RCUK's -- that denies fundees the right to publish in > any journal that does not offer either Gold CC-BY or Gratis-Green with at > most a 6-12 month embargo, and that only allows authors to pick Green if > the journal does not offer Gold -- is already doomed to author resentment, > resistance and non-compliance, then adding the constraint that any Green > must be CC-BY would be to court outright researcher rebellion. > > In short, the pre-emptive insistence upon CC-BY OA, if recklessly and > irrationally heeded, would bring the (already slow) progress toward OA, and > the promise of progress, to a grinding halt. > > Finch/RCUK's bias toward paid Gold over cost-free Green was clearly a > result of self-interested publisher lobbying. But if it were compounded by > a premature and counterproductive insistence on CC-BY for all by a small > segment of the researcher community, then the prospects of OA (both Gratis > and CC-BY), so fertile if we at last take the realistic, pragmatic course > of mandating Gratis Green OA globally first, would become as fallow as they > have been for the past two decades, for decades to come. > > Some quote/comments follow below: > > *Jan Velterop:* We've always heard, from Stevan Harnad, that the author >>> was the one who intrinsically had copyright on the manuscript version, so >>> could deposit it, as an open access article, in an open repository >>> irrespective of the publisher's views. >>> >> > I said -- because it's true, and two decades' objective evidence shows it > -- that authors can deposit the refereed, final draft with no realistic > threat of copyright action from the publisher. > > >> JV: If that is correct, then the author could also attach a CC-BY licence >>> to the manuscript version. >>> >> > Nothing of the sort. Author self-archiving to provide free online access > (Gratis Green OA) is one thing -- claiming and dispensing re-use and > republication rights (CC-BY) is quite another. > > JV: If it is incorrect, the author can't deposit the manuscript with open >>> access without the explicit permission of the publisher of his final, >>> published version, and the argument advanced for more than a decade by >>> Stevan Harnad is invalid. >>> >> > Incorrect. Authors can make their refereed final drafts free for all > online without the prospect of legal action from the publisher, but not > with a CC-BY license to re-use and re-publish. > > Moreover, for authors who elect to comply with publisher embargoes on > Green Gratis OA, there is the option of depositing in Closed Access and > relying on the Almost-OA Button to provide eprint-requesters with > individual eprints during the embargo. This likewise does not come with > CC-BY rights. > > JV: Which is it? I think Stevan was right, and a manuscript can be >>> deposited with open access whether or not the publisher likes it. Whence >>> his U-turn, I don't know. >>> >> > No U-turn whatsoever. Just never the slightest implication from me that > anything more than free online access was intended. > > >> JV: But if he was right at first, and I believe that's the case, that >>> also means that it can be covered by a CC-BY licence. Repositories can't >>> attach the licence, but 'gold' OA publishers can't either. It's always the >>> author, as copyright holder by default. All repositories and OA publishers >>> can do is require it as a condition of acceptance (to be included in the >>> repository or to be published). What the publisher can do if he doesn't >>> like the author making available the manuscript with open access, is apply >>> the Ingelfinger rule or simply refuse to publish the article. >>> >> > The above is extremely unrealistic and counterproductive policy advice to > institutions and funders. > > If an OA mandate is gratuitously upgraded to CC-BY it just means that most > authors will be unable to get their papers published in their journal of > choice if they comply with the mandate. So authors will not comply with the > mandate, and the mandate will fail. > > *Peter Murray-Rust: *If we can establish the idea of Green-CC-BY as the >> norm for deposition in repositories then I would embrace it >> enthusiastically. I can see no downside other than that some publishers >> will fight it. But they fight anyway > > > The downside is that authors won't fight, and hence OA itself will lose > the global Gratis Green OA that is fully within its reach, and stay in the > non-OA limbo (neither Gratis nor CC-BY, neither Green nor Gold) in which > most research still is today -- and has been for two decades. > > And the irony is that -- speaking practically rather than ideologically -- > the fastest and surest prospect for both CC-BY and Gold is to first quickly > reach global Gratis Green OA. Needlessly over-reaching can undermine all of > OA's objectives. > > PMR: It would resolve all the apparent problems of the Finch reoprt etc. >> It is only because Green licences are undefined that we have this problem >> at all. >> > > On the contrary: raising the Gratis Green 6-12 goalposts to immediate > Green CC-BY would make the Finch/RCUK a pure hybrid-Gold mandate and > nothing else. And its failure would be a resounding one. > > PMR: And if we all agreed it could be launched for Open Access Week > > > That would certainly be a prominent historic epitaph for OA. I hope, on > the contrary, that pragmatic voices will be raised during OA week, so that > we can get on with reaching for the reachable instead of gratuitously > raising the goalposts to unrealistic heights. > > Stevan Harnad > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
