With all due respect to the people who created and shared the "how open is it" spectrum tool, I find some of the underlying assumptions to be problematic.
For example the extreme of closed access assumes that having to pay subscriptions, membership, pay per view etc. is the far end of closed. My perspective is that the opposite of open is closure of knowledge. Climate change denied, climate scientists muzzled, fired or harassed, climate change science defunded, climate data taken down and destroyed, deliberate spread of misinformation. This is not a moot point. This end of the spectrum is a reality today, one that is far more concerning for many researchers than pay walls (not that I support paywalls). Fair use in listed in a row named closed access. I argue that fair use / fair dealing is essential to academic work and journalism, and must apply to all works, not just those that can be subject to academic OA policy. There is an underlying assumption about the importance and value of re-use / remix that omits any discussion of the pros, cons, or desirability of re-use / remix that I argue we should be having. Earlier today I mentioned some of the potential pitfalls. Now I would like to two potential pitfalls: mistranslation and errors in instructions for dangerous procedures. There are dangers of poor published translations to knowledge per se (ie introduce errors) and to the author's reputation, ie an author could easily be indirectly misquoted due to a poor translation. There are good reasons why some authors and journals hesitate to grant downstream translations permissions. Reader side translations (eg automated translation tools) are not the same as downstream published translations, although readers should be made aware of the current limitations of automated translation. If people are copying instructions for potentially dangerous procedures (surgery, chemicals, engineering techniques), and they are not at least as expert as the original author, it might be in everyone's best interests if downstream readers are not invited and encouraged to manipulate the text, images, etc. In creative works, eg to prepare a horror flick, by all means take this and that, mix it together and create something new and intriguing. I am not convinced that the same arguments ought to apply to works that might guide procedures in a real hospital operating room. I suggest the "how open is it" spectrum is a useful exercise that has served a purpose for some but not a canon for all to adhere to. best, Heather Morrison -------- Original message -------- From: David Prosser <david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk> Date: 2017-01-23 2:16 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How much of the content in open repositories is able to meet the definition of open access? I rather like the ‘How open is it?’ tool that approaches this as a spectrum: http://sparcopen.org/our-work/howopenisit/ I may be quite ‘hard line’, but I acknowledge that by moving along the spectrum a paper, monograph, piece of data (or whatever) becomes more open - and more open is better than less open. If the funders have gone to the far end of the spectrum it is perhaps because they feel that the greatest benefits are there, not because they have been convinced that they have to follow the strict, ‘hard line’ definition of open access. David On 23 Jan 2017, at 18:30, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com<mailto:richard.poyn...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Marc, You say: "I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such: I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit tired of discussions about what 'being OA' means." I hear you, but I think the key point here is that OA advocates (perhaps not you, but OA advocates) are successfully convincing a growing number of research funders (e.g. Wellcome Trust, RCUK, Ford Foundation, Hewlett Foundation, Gates Foundation etc.) that CC BY is the only acceptable form of open access. So however tired you and Stevan might be of discussing it, I believe there are important implications and consequences flowing from that. Richard Poynder On 23 January 2017 at 16:31, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca<mailto:marc.cout...@teluq.ca>> wrote: Hi all, Just to be clear, my position on the basic issue here. I certainly qualify as an OA advocate, and as such : - I don’t equate OA with CC BY (or any CC license); in fact, I’m a little bit tired of discussions about what “being OA” means. - I work to help increase the proportion of gratis OA, still much too low. - I try to convince my colleagues that CC BY is the best way to disseminate scientific/scholarly works and make them useful. I favour CC BY over the restricted versions (mainly -NC) because I find the arguments about potentially unwanted or devious uses far less compelling than those about the advantages of unrestricted uses and the drawbacks of restrictions that can be much more stringent than they seem at first glance. Like Stevan said, OA advocates are indeed a plurality. The opposite would bother me. Marc Couture _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Richard Poynder www.richardpoynder.co.uk<http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/> _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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
