On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
*S.H.*: Can we wait, please, until [mandates] at least cover (journal > article) text, rather than demanding even more when we don't yet even have > less? > *A.S.*: There is no need to wait… Open access data is within our easy > reach, because there are no publishers involved… Details need to [be] > resolved and open access of research data is not fully implemented, but it > is a long way ahead of scholarly published text…. Software is only > different because [of] the potential profit ... Voluntary provision of OA to anything -- articles, data, books, software -- can of course proceed apace. But when it comes to *mandates*, there are obstacles. With articles, the obstacle is publishers. (Authors are willing but worried, and need their institutional and funder mandates to support and embolden them. But the mandates must contend with publisher embargoes of various lengths.) In contrast, with data and software the obstacle is authors. And with books the obstacle is both authors and publishers. Researchers are not data-gatherers. They gather data in order to analyze it and publish their findings, and they want (and deserve) first-expoitation rights. How long access to data should be reserved to the data-gatherer is the "detail to be resolved" with data. This will vary from discipline to discipline and study to study. Unlike with articles, instant OA is not a fair solution that fits all. But I of course agree that immediate-deposit (with the option of restricted access) does fit data just as well as articles. What I am cautioning, however, at a time when article OA mandates are still few, and mostly needlessly weak -- most of them not yet being the optimal Liege-model immediate-deposit mandates with optional immediate-OA -- is that it will not accelerate but retard progress to try to make OA mandates do double-duty as both article and data OA mandates. Rather, once strong OA mandates for articles have become widespread, the article access they generate will pave the way for (fair) data OA mandates and eventually(fair) book and even (fair) software mandates. That said, of course both voluntarism and fair closed-access immediate-deposit policies for data are certainly welcome too. (I would be rather surprised, however, if open access to data "is a long way ahead of scholarly published text," even in Australia…) *Stevan Harnad* > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* Friday, 22 November 2013 10:26 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Cc:* scholc...@ala.org; open-acc...@lists.okfn.org > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Re: Re: Fight Publishing Lobby's > Latest "FIRST" Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc. > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Bjoern Brembs <b.bre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > *[Arthur] *… > > I would expand green mandates to cover not only text, but also data and > software. > > Can we wait, please, until they at least cover (journal article) text, > rather than demanding even more when we don't yet even have less? > > > > *[Arthur] *… > > > > *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
