Dear Wouter, Just to clarify, with our comments COAR is not proposing that "free to read" and "open access" are the same.
"Open access" indicates the access mode/status regardless of any limitations (while "free_to_read" already implies a restriction: it is free to read) Instead what users are permitted to do with the "scholarly content" should be articulated by the license reference, e.g. read only, derivatives, re-use, aggregation, text-mining etc. In addition, there are already established practices and vocabularies to describe these concepts used by our members (Open Access/Closed Access/Embargoed Access). Why not use those? (It somewhat paradoxical that "Open Access Metadata and Indicators" begins by not using the term Open Access) All the best, Kathleen On 2014-02-04, at 3:09 PM, "Gerritsma, Wouter" <wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl> wrote: > Dear Kathleen > > There is a tremendous difference between “open access” and “free to read”. > You can’t simply state Use the term “open access” instead of “free to read”: > I can’t see how this can be the official statement from COAR. > > Yours sincerely > Wouter Gerritsma > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of > Kathleen Shearer > Sent: dinsdag 4 februari 2014 18:12 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] COAR Comments on NISO's Open Access Metadata and Indicators > > Dear OA community, > I thought some of you may be interested in COAR's comments on NISO's draft > Open Access Metadata and Indicators > > COAR's Comments on NISO's Open Access Metadata and Indicators > The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) supports NISO’s efforts > to harmonize the expression of open access and re-use rights for > publications. We strongly believe that it would be very beneficial to have a > common approach to these indicators across the entire scholarly community. > COAR is an international association of repository initiatives representing > over 100 organizations in 35 countries on 4 continents (Asia, Europe, North > America and South America). Our mission is to enhance the visibility and > application of research outputs through a global network of Open Access > digital repositories. COAR’s members represent an important stakeholder > community, as they would be tasked with adapting to any such community > standard within the context of their repositories. To that end, we have a > number of specific comments that we invite the NISO working group to consider. > Adopt a common vocabulary within the context of existing metadata schemas, > instead of creating new metadata elements: In principal, COAR concurs that > there should be a clear distinction between the expression of access status > and associated rights. However, we have strong concerns with the proposal to > introduce new metadata elements in order to express these concepts. Most > existing metadata schemas already have elements for expressing rights (for > example, the rights element in Dublin Core). Instead of introducing new > metadata elements, which will be extremely onerous for the community to > adopt, COAR proposes the adoption of a common vocabulary that can be > implemented into elements within existing metadata schemas. COAR and other > stakeholders in the repository community are already maintaining the > “info:eu-repo” vocabulary[1] that could promote the use of standard > vocabulary elements around open access. In addition, any described standards > should also be compatible with more detailed and extensive metadata formats > beyond Dublin Core (for example MODS, MARCXML or CERIF) and should be checked > in this respect. > Use the term “open access” instead of “free to read”: Open access is a term > widely used and understood in the scholarly community and has become the > standard terminology. COAR sees no value in adopting a new term. Rather a new > term, free to read, will only serve to obfuscate the issue. > There should be no end dates for “free to read” (or “open access”) indicator: > By allocating an end date to the “free to read” element, the working group is > confusing open access content with promotional material (that may be made > available for a short time and then attached with a fee). This practice would > go against normal and best practice of the scholarly community. Open access > (free to read), by its very nature, can be embargoed for a time, but once it > has been made available without a fee, cannot be put again behind a pay wall. > More repository use cases should be included: There are two major options for > providing open access to articles: open access journals and open access > repository. The NISO recommendations fail to take into account the range of > indicators that are required in the repository context. For example, in their > current form, there is no way to express who the copyright holder is or > distinguish between pre-prints from post-prints. Furthermore, there is a > significant portion of content in repositories that lacks a URI with > information about re-use rights. Current repository platforms have already > implemented much more sophisticated approaches to rights expression than the > ones recommended by NISO. These may have to be drastically altered if current > indicators are adopted. In terms of next steps, we strongly urge the working > group to consider designing a simple mapping or crosswalk that would allow > repositories to join into this harmonization effort. In addition, more > repository use cases should be taken into account as the recommendations are > adapted and implemented, and NISO should broaden its working group to include > greater representation from the repository community. > Widen the scope of recommendations: End users of repositories need > transparent information on the access conditions for all types of material in > their collections. The NISO draft emphasizes content and scholarly works, > terms that imply a wide range of content types beyond publications. However, > as acknowledged by NISO (pg. 2), these indicators do not take into account > the characteristics of a range research outputs including datasets. Research > data is increasingly recognized as an important scholarly output, valuable on > its own or in connection with publications. It is clear that the issue of > access to research data is difficult to describe with a simple "free-to-read" > tag, or similar. Taking all this in consideration COAR suggests that any > recommended practice should also address research data. > [1] > https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/ > > > > Kathleen Shearer > Executive Director, COAR > kathleen.shea...@coar-repositories.org > www.coar-repositories.org > Skype: kathleen.shearer2 > +1 514 847 9068 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
