On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Sally Morris < sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 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. > That's primarily because many publishers ban in with legal contracts. So it's not done. That's changing - OA publishers are very positive (BMC, PLOS ...). There's a chicken-and-egg. Forbid textmining => no tools developed => no use => assertions nobody wants it. Also it is difficult to argue for something that is not widely deployed. Ask anyone in 1993 whether they want a (deliberately) fragile hypermedia system with a stupid name (Word - wide - Web) cooked up by a geek in CERN and they'd look in amazement. 1995 we believed in the web. It'll be the same with TextMining. The STM publishers individually and severally have tried to advocate against it but - at least in UK - Hargreaves has overridden this. In April 2014 Hargreaves legislation will come in. > > 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' > If an industry is pouring millions into lobbyists and systems to stop me and others developing TDM except under their complete control then, yes, I do regard it as a hostile act. Do I want to destroy it? Not per se, but I want it to change. STM is about 25 years behind the rest of the world. The double-column sighted-human-only PDF is a disgrace in the electronic century. There is no ability to innovate technically, socially, economically, politically or organizationally. We are stuck in C20-stasis. Every year that passes sees more pressure building up for change. Recent years suggest the industry is incapable of change so I predict that parts of it will crash heavily. Maybe some will adjust. For me the industry adds very little positive value. Academics can manage authoring, peer-review, production. For me the typesetting is negative value. We should get rid of it. We cannot now even trust parts of the industry. What's left? A badge for the author and their institution. > Does this mean that everyone agrees with me on both points?! ;-) > You can interpret my paragraphs however you wish. > > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
