[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List
The only values in OA that matter to me (and many others) are those in the BOAI (and related BBB) declarations. These are declarations of human rights. They fed off early declarations such as Richard Stallman's freedoms in software and are mirrored in many other endeavours.These include Free and Open Source, Open Data (a term I resurrected in 2006), Open Government Data, Open Bibliography, Open Citations, and many more (Dave Flanders has a complete alphabet). The term "libre" is often used synonymously with Free/Open. Perhaps the greatest victory for Libre was the human genome - preserved for all of us and not controlled by an uncontrollable company. All of these conform to the Open Definition of the Open Knowledge Foundation - "free to use, re-use and redistribute" simple, clear, useful and empowering. For us in OKF Open is not an end in itself, but is to make knowledge USEFUL. For saving the planet; for increasing human health, for making better decisions, for educating. BOAI-Open ensures that. It's nothing to do with peer review. It's based on justice for every citizen of the planet. When the BOAI was launched I celebrated. It seemed a great step forward. But over the years several of the signatories have backed away from the use of BOAI as a vision of Open. Something can be "OA-libre" if we are allowed "some" unspecified removal of barriers. This is not only a completely useless definition but discredits OA in activities outside. It seems that many of the signatories don't really care about the values of the BOAI. For me Green Access is not libre. Green is a concession allowed on arbitrary occasions by an occupying power - a toll-access publisher. It is not negotiated, it is not a right. It does not lead to justice. And it's costing hundreds of millions each year, if not more, in terms of opportunity costs. The human genome (fully libre) has generated downstream wealth of 140 dollars for every dollar invested. What has OA generated in downstream wealth? Because of its fragmented nature it's unmeasurable. But I have calculated that in chemistry alone BOAI-compliant publications (which allows content-mining) would generate "low billions per year" worldwide - this is the figure I transmitted to the UK government. That is the opportunity cost of non-BOAI. FWIW I am starting large scale content-mining of science this week. And I shall publish the results under CC0 (OKD compliant). Anyone interested in true Open-ness is welcome to help. On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Graham Triggs wrote: > On 12 December 2013 15:14, Sally Morris > wrote: > >> 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) >> > > Sorry Sally, but I really have to disagree. It is a definition for what a > number of people considered to be important. Plus, it is consistent with > the other existing definitions of "open ..." (such as open source). > > Clearly, other people may have a different opinion. Some may feel that > everyone who needs access already has it (or they at least don't feel that > people denied access are particularly relevant to them). Others may believe > that only being able to read is important, and additional terms, whilst > beneficial are not as necessary, and may be holding back delivering > "access". > > That doesn't mean that the BOAI definition is too narrow. It means that > people are campaigning for a different end. Which is fine. But as they are > different ends (with some similarities), let's call them different things. > We have "Open Access" - as defined by BOAI, and there is "public access", > which provides the ability to read for free, but with none of the other > freedoms. > > Let people choose which unambiguously defined term provides for optimal > scholarly exchange, rather than redefining a 10 year-old term, changes to > which nobody will ever be able to agree on. > > G > > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- 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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List
On 12 December 2013 15:14, Sally Morris wrote: > 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) > Sorry Sally, but I really have to disagree. It is a definition for what a number of people considered to be important. Plus, it is consistent with the other existing definitions of "open ..." (such as open source). Clearly, other people may have a different opinion. Some may feel that everyone who needs access already has it (or they at least don't feel that people denied access are particularly relevant to them). Others may believe that only being able to read is important, and additional terms, whilst beneficial are not as necessary, and may be holding back delivering "access". That doesn't mean that the BOAI definition is too narrow. It means that people are campaigning for a different end. Which is fine. But as they are different ends (with some similarities), let's call them different things. We have "Open Access" - as defined by BOAI, and there is "public access", which provides the ability to read for free, but with none of the other freedoms. Let people choose which unambiguously defined term provides for optimal scholarly exchange, rather than redefining a 10 year-old term, changes to which nobody will ever be able to agree on. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly CompromisesCredibilityofBeall's List
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
_
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto: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"
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
On 11 Dec 2013, at 22:30, Sally Morris wrote:
I actually think that J-C's response illustrates very clearly how OA has
been mistaken for a religion, with its very own 'gospel'. This, IMHO, is
part of its problem!
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: 10 December 2013 15:26
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility
ofBeall's List
In response to Sally, I would remind her that re-use was part of the
original BOAI declaration. Scholars and teachers need more than eye-contact
with articles. So, this is not a secondary point.
The immediacy issue concerns deposit; it is simply a pragmatic and obvious
point: capturing an article at time of acceptance is optimal for exposure
and circulation of information. If the publisher does not allow public
exposure and imposes an embargo - thus slowing down the circulation of
knowledge -, the private request button allows for eye contact, at least.
This button solution is not optimal, but it will do on a pragmatic scale so
long as it is needed to circumvent publishers' tactics.
Cost savings are not part of BOAI; it is a request by administrators of
research centres and their libraries. This said, costs of OA publishing
achieved by a platform such as Scielo are way beneath the prices practised
by commercial publishers (including non-profit ones). And it should become
obvious that if you avoid 45% profit rates, you should benefit.
The distinction between "nice" and "nasty" publishers is of unknown origin
and I would not subscribe to it. More fundamentally, we should ask and ask
again whether scientific publishing is
