I don't deny that re-use (e.g. text mining) is a valuable attribute of OA for some scholars; interestingly, however, it is rarely if ever mentioned in surveys which ask scholars for their own unprompted definition of OA. That suggests to me that it is not fundamental in most scholars' minds. The few responses to my original posting have all focused on whether the 'credo' of the BBB declarations is or is not fundamental to the underlying concept of OA. I find it interesting that no one has commented at all on the two main points I was trying to make (perhaps not clearly enough): 1) The focus of OA seems to be, to a considerable extent, the destruction of the publishing industry: note the hostile language of, for example, Peter M-R's 'occupying power' 2) It still seems curious to me (as to Beall) that scholars have to be forced, by mandates, to comply with a behaviour which is considered be self-evidently beneficial to them Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both points?! ;-) Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
_____ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Penny Andrews Sent: 12 December 2013 17:04 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List Sally, for many scholars (who do currently exist, not just in the future) textmining is their main research activity. Open licensing to do that unimpeded isn't some theoretical paradise, it's what they need right now to do their work. On Thursday, December 12, 2013, Sally Morris wrote: I agree completely that 'green' and 'gold' (however tightly or loosely defined) are the means, not the end But I still feel that the BOAI definition may be an unnecessarily tight/narrow definition of the end: optimal scholarly exchange, as you put it (or unimpeded access to research articles for those who need to read them, as I would perhaps more narrowly describe it) Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk');> _____ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'goal-boun...@eprints.org');> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'goal-boun...@eprints.org');> ] On Behalf Of Jan Velterop Sent: 12 December 2013 13:44 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List But Sally, so-called 'green' and 'gold' are the means. The BOAI definition is an articulation of the end, the goal. Of course, if you navigate the ocean of politics and vested interests of science publishing, you need to tack sometimes to make progress against the wind. That's permissible, even necessary. But it doesn't change the intended destination on which a good sailor keeps his focus. If that's religion, anything is. (Which may be the case :-)). One mistake made by some OA advocates is to elevate the means to the goal. Another one is to confuse the temporary course of tacking with the overall course needed to reach the destination. In the larger picture, OA itself is but a means, of course. To the goal of optimal scholarly knowledge exchange. And so on, Russian doll like. But that's a different discussion, I think Jan Velterop On 12 Dec 2013, at 12:03, "Sally Morris" <sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote: What I'm saying is that OA may have done itself a disservice by adhering so rigidly to tight definitions. A more relaxed focus on the end rather than the means might prove more appealing to the scholars for whose benefit it is supposed to exist Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk _____ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 12 December 2013 08:37 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises CredibilityofBeall's List Let me get this right, Jean-Claude mentioning the Budapest Open Access Initiative to show that re-use was an integral part of the original definition of open access and not some later ('quasi-religeous') addition as Sally avers. And by doing so he is betraying some type of religious zeal? One of the interesting aspect of the open access debate has been the language. Those who argue against OA have been keen to paint OA advocates as 'zealots', extremists, and impractical idealists. I've always felt that such characterisation was an attempt to mask the paucity of argument. David
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
