I'm not sure why J-C thinks I'm against opening up access as widely as possible. I've never said that, and I don't think it. I want it to be sustainable, but whether that means any role for publishers as we know them only time will tell. I merely pointed out that Beall's article did, in fact, raise some worthwhile 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 Jean-Claude Guédon Sent: 14 December 2013 20:53 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List Sally, Re-use and text mining are not the same thing. If I distribute my own articles in my own classroom, this is re-use and it relies only on eye contact, not machine-reading. That scholars are not yet focused on text-mining is simply the result, of inertia and force of habit. It is coming, but it is coming slowly. However, slowness does not prevent from thinking ahead, and many publishers certainly are. The "executable paper" bounty offered by Elsevier a couple of years ago shows another publishing angle which, for the moment, is not much on the scholars' radars, but it will be. Creating new "societies of texts" through various kinds of algorithms will be the same. Publishers are thinking about these issues. Some OA advocates are doing the same, not on the basis of surveys that tend to emphasize the past and the familiar, but rather in a future-looking perspective. Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms. Muddying the waters and making the whole scene as illegible to regular scientists as is possible, all the while raising the fear of various legal interventions in the background (e.g. Michael Mabe recently in Berlin, alluding to the possibility of ant-trust actions in reaction to libraries coordinating too well for the industry's taste) cannot be treated as if it did not happen or had not been planned and engineered with one aim: slow down acceptance by all possible means, and try taking control of the movement to exploit it the publishers' way. Also, this is the first time that I see people being criticized simply for trying to be precise and unambiguous. I guess mathematicians must be extremely rigid, unreasonable, and uncooperative people... Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. Saying this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including myself, are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but these are individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to imagine alternatives to the present publishing system. This means competition, I guess. But it may be that the publishing industry does not like competition, true competition. Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise here... :-) As for scholars, they do not have to be forced by mandates. Just tell them, as was done in Belgium, that you will be evaluated on the basis of only what is available in the right depository, and everything will fall into place. Now, researchers paid by universities or research centres cannot object to being evaluated, and to reasonable rules of evaluation such as deposit your publications in this box if you want to have them taken into account. Open access is beneficial to researchers, and that is obvious. But being obvious is not necessarily self-evident. To be obvious, one needs to look at studies on citation advantages, assess them, etc. But if local evaluations do not pay attention to these advantages, why should a scholar pay great attention so long as promotions and grants keep coming on the basis of fallacious metrics such as impact factors of journal titles. To meditate further on the distinction between obvious and self-evident, one only needs to rehearse all the arguments that were being adduced by opponents to both the American and French revolutions: democracy was obviously better than absolute monarchy, at least for most people; but the elites threw enough arguments into the air to make it less than self-evident for quite a while. Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is not fit for Third World brains, or that Third World brains are good enough only if they focus on problems defined by rich countries. Make no mistake about this: the anger in those parts of the world where 80% of humanity lives is rising and what the consequences of this anger will be, I cannot foretell, but they will likely be dire and profound. If I were in your shoes, I would be scared. Jean-Claude Guédon Le vendredi 13 décembre 2013 à 13:14 +0000, Sally Morris a écrit : 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 -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal
<<face-smile.png>>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
