[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Heather Morrison]

Andrew,

My blog and dataverse are freely available on the web. The data is deliberately 
shared as open data - I have posted invitations on my blogs for anyone to 
download.

This is not at all like the Aaron Schwartz case. 

best,

Heather


> On Jun 2, 2015, at 2:58 AM, "Andrew A. Adams"  wrote:
> 
> 
> Heather Morrison wrote:
>> Challenge: My research blog and data verses are both fully open with
>> no CC license at all. They are All Rights Reserved, and yet posted
>> on the web, in the case of the dataverse deliberately so that people
>> can go ahead and download and manipulate the data.  I challenge
>> anyone to go ahead and try some text and data mining. If you think
>> there are legalities preventing you from doing this, please explain
>> what they are.
> 
>> Blog:  sustainingknowledgecommons.org
>> OA APCs: http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/oaapc/
> 
>> There probably are some barriers to text and data mining, however
>> these have nothing to do with legalities. For example, this morning
>> I was looking for Walt Crawford's comment on one of my posts. This
>> didn't come up, but that's likely just because Wordpress is not set
>> up to search comments.
> 
> Technical access is not the same as the legal right to access. Consider Aaron 
> Shwartz' case.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> On 2015-06-01, at 4:17 PM, Peter Murray-Rust 
>  wrote:
>
> >
> > Please accept that posting on the web, with whatever good intentions but
> without explicit licence, gives no rights to any potential user.
>
> Good grief, no, I accept no such thing. You sound like a copyright
> maximalist here, PMR.
>

I am a copyright realist. The reality is that Copyright law trumps any
"implicit" permissions. If I download from a site with "All Rights
Reserved" or indeed without a clear *legal* license such as CC then I am
potentially breaking copyright and can be taken to court. The judge will
decide using the law of the country/ies involved (which may be difficult
with distributed servers, remote working, etc.).



> We need to understand that posting on the web means that you are
> automating giving people certain permissions, e.g. to read, copy, crawl,
> unless you have put up explicit barriers.


There is no legal justification for this and it will usually not act as a
defence in court. I am often challenged by publishers who assert I have no
right to mine material on their sites. Legal letters to repositories have
required them to remove material.


> This is not something to be taken for granted, rather an obvious right to
> fight for in copyright law.


And that is what I and many other have been fighting for for years. In the
UK parliament, In Strasbourg, in Brussels. It may be "obvious" but it is
being fought tooth and nail by the STM publishing industry with lobbying
and FUD.


> Precisely what permissions is not something we need to figure out exactly
> in advance. Norms can evolve based on what people do, what they like and
> dislike.
>
> >
> > A CC BY document, with only one copy behind the LIcensor's firewall is
> not accessible and is therefore operationally closed. If one copy is
> published, then it can be copied and cannot be revoked by the licensor.
>
> Agreed. CC-BY does not necessarily mean open access. A CC-BY license can
> be applied to a work that is never shared with anyone at all. A CC-BY
> license can be put on a work with technological protection measures that
> prevent people from actually using the rights granted.



> CC-BY is not sufficient for open access.
>

In all non-hypothetical cases it has been fully sufficient to grant
BOAI-compliant Open Access. Where publishers hide CC-BY material behind
firewalls I an others alert the community. It would be nice to have greater
support for this.


>
> >Thank you for acknowledging that the UK has changed its laws to
> facilitate data and text mining.
>

Since I have spent years fighting for this I am happy to publicize it.


>
> best,
>
> Heather
> ___
> 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: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Heather Morrison]

On 2015-06-01, at 4:10 PM, Michael Eisen 
mailto:mbei...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:

Nobody is insisting on perfect solutions - none of the current solutions are 
even close to perfect - but what Heather was proposing was a change in goals. 
There is nothing to be gained - and a lot to lose - by redefining what we mean 
by open access (and thereby what we are trying to achieve) in order to wrap its 
umbrella around every imperfect effort to achieve it.

To be clear, my purpose in this particular series has nothing to do with 
changing goals or redefining OA. Not that I don't think this should be 
discussed, rather I want to separate the topics. My point on inclusivity has to 
do with the people who are working to make access as open as they can under 
their circumstances, not the technicalities of what constitutes the ideal open 
access. The editor of a journal that would love to be fully OA but doesn't see 
how the journal can survive without subscription revenue so goes for delayed 
open access is not an enemy of open access.

best,

Heather
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Andrew A. Adams]

Heather Morrison wrote:
> Challenge: My research blog and data verses are both fully open with
> no CC license at all. They are All Rights Reserved, and yet posted
> on the web, in the case of the dataverse deliberately so that people
> can go ahead and download and manipulate the data.  I challenge
> anyone to go ahead and try some text and data mining. If you think
> there are legalities preventing you from doing this, please explain
> what they are.

> Blog:  sustainingknowledgecommons.org
> OA APCs: http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/oaapc/
 
> There probably are some barriers to text and data mining, however
> these have nothing to do with legalities. For example, this morning
> I was looking for Walt Crawford's comment on one of my posts. This
> didn't come up, but that's likely just because Wordpress is not set
> up to search comments.

Technical access is not the same as the legal right to access. Consider Aaron 
Shwartz' case.


-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Heather Morrison]

On 2015-06-01, at 4:17 PM, Peter Murray-Rust 
 wrote:

> 
> Please accept that posting on the web, with whatever good intentions but 
> without explicit licence, gives no rights to any potential user.

Good grief, no, I accept no such thing. You sound like a copyright maximalist 
here, PMR. 

We need to understand that posting on the web means that you are automating 
giving people certain permissions, e.g. to read, copy, crawl, unless you have 
put up explicit barriers. This is not something to be taken for granted, rather 
an obvious right to fight for in copyright law. Precisely what permissions is 
not something we need to figure out exactly in advance. Norms can evolve based 
on what people do, what they like and dislike. 

> 
> A CC BY document, with only one copy behind the LIcensor's firewall is not 
> accessible and is therefore operationally closed. If one copy is published, 
> then it can be copied and cannot be revoked by the licensor. 

Agreed. CC-BY does not necessarily mean open access. A CC-BY license can be 
applied to a work that is never shared with anyone at all. A CC-BY license can 
be put on a work with technological protection measures that prevent people 
from actually using the rights granted. CC-BY is not sufficient for open 
access. 

> 
> the legality of search engines is unclear in many cases.

If you would avoid data or text mining my blog because of legal uncertainty, 
shall I assume that you are avoiding search engines as well? If not, this is a 
contradiction.

Thank you for acknowledging that the UK has changed its laws to facilitate data 
and text mining. 

best,

Heather 
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Dana Roth 
wrote:

>  Taking Bernard's 'public road' analogy a little further ... one wonders
> his insistence on a 'perfect' solution isn't unfairly denigrating a
> reasonable (at least in the short term) alternative.
>
> The current situation, where the 'public NIH road' is closed temporarily
> (12 months) and one has to use a 'toll road' to access embargoed articles,
> seems much better than the situation before the creation of PubMed Central
> ... which now has 3.5 million freely available full text articles.
>

 The 'public NIH road' is NOT closed temporarily (12 months): NIH authors
are not OBLIGED by NIH to wait for 12 months: they are ALLOWED by NIH to
wait for at most 12 months.

What makes the present situation better than before is mandates, not
embargoes.

Mandates, allowable-embargoes and the Button are a means to an end -- a
series of ends, actually:

First, universally mandated immediate-Green-OA (Gratis) or immediate
deposit plus immediate Button-mediated "Almost-OA" (Gratis)

Second, universal Green OA (Gratis)

Third, subscription cancellation, made possible by universal Green OA
(Gratis)

Fourth, publisher downsizing and conversion to Fair-Gold OA (Libre:
CC-BY-NC-ND or CC-BY, as desired by authors, their institutions and funders)

Stevan Harnad


*From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of
brent...@ulg.ac.be [brent...@ulg.ac.be]

> *Sent:* Monday, June 01, 2015 11:02 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive
>
>   When I want to drive on a public road, whether it is closed or
> temporarily closed makes no difference to me. It is not open. I can't use
> it.
> Embargo is antinomic to open.
>
>  Bernard Rentier
>
> Le 1 juin 2015 à 18:26, Stevan Harnad  a écrit :
>
>   On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen 
> wrote:
>
>> There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals
>> and definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how
>> many times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make
>> articles freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The
>> belief that the NIH provides open access with its public access policy
>> provides real drag on the quest to provide actual open access. You can
>> argue about whether or not the policy is a good thing because it's a step
>> in the right direction, or a bad thing because it reifies delayed access.
>> But calling what the provide "open access" serves only to confuse people,
>> to weaken our objectives and give the still far more powerful forces who do
>> not want open access a way to resist pressure for it.
>>
>
>  It's nice to be able to agree with Mike Eisen.
>
>  Open Access (OA) comes in two degrees
> <http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/gratis-and-libre-open-access>: *Gratis
> OA* is immediate, permanent free online access and *Libre OA* is Gratis
> OA plus various re-use rights (up to CC-BY or even public domain).
>
>  What both degrees of OA share is that they are both immediate (and
> permanent) <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html>.
>
>  Otherwise, there's just Delayed (Embargoed) Access, which is no more
> "Open Access" than Toll Access is.
>
>  To treat Delayed Access as if it were a form of Open Access would be to
> reduce OA to meaninglessness (and would play into the hands of publishers
> who would like to see precisely that happen).
>
>  Stevan Harnad
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison <
>> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> hi David,
>>>
>>> Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are
>>> moving towards open access in slightly different ways are two different
>>> things. My post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and
>>> welcoming approach to open access.
>>>
>>> For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with
>>> editors of small journals that either are, or would like to be, open
>>> access. Behind the more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are
>>> probably much more than 10 thousand such editors, working hard to convince
>>> colleagues to move to open access, struggling to figure out how to do this
>>> in order to make ends meet. While some of us have been active and vocal in
>>> OA discussions and policy formulation, others have been quietly doing this
>>> work, often contributing a great deal of v

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Stevan Harnad]

Yes, Delayed Access is better than no access. (Toll access is better than
no access too.)

Yes, publisher embargoes have cowed (some) authors into providing Delayed
Access instead of Open Access.

But that does not make Delayed Access Open Access.

And the objective is to provide Open Access, immediately upon acceptance
for publication, not Delayed Access.

That is why Green OA mandates need to be optimized
 so as to maximize deposit rate and
minimize deposit latency; and that's also why the copy-request Button
 needs to be
implemented to provide Almost-OA, tide over research needs during publisher
embargoes, and hasten the demise of all embargoes, hence delays, forcing
publishers to downsize and convert to Fair-Gold.

(Citations are delayed whether what they cite is Open Access or Delayed
Access.)

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Bo-Christer Björk <
bo-christer.bj...@hanken.fi> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I agree with Heather that we should take a more inclusive approach to
> Open Access. For most ordinary academics and non-academics all that
> counts is getting access to particular articles they want to read that
> more often than not are identified via references.
>
> The landscape is not black and white. Most of Green OA for reasons of
> embargoes and author behavior is delayed OA.
>
> In a study we made a couple of years ago (Delayed Open Access – an
> overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature
> Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Björk)  we estimated that of the citations
> (not cited articles) in Web of Knowledge in the last available year:
>
> 80 % pointed to articles in closed subscription journals (of which some
> may be found as green copies)
>
> 6 % pointed to articles in immediate OA journals
>
> 14 % pointed to articles in delayed OA journals with embargo periods of
> max 12 months. This is due to the fact that many of the some 500 delayed
> OA journals that we found were high volume and impact.
>
> The figures might look a bit different today but the overall picture is
> the same. To me it is clear that the reading of scholarly articles that
> you track via citations is a very important part of the all reading of
> scholarly articles.
>
> Bo-Christer Björk
>
> ___
> 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

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

>  Question and challenge
>
>  Question: Didn't the UK recently change its legislation explicitly to
> allow for data and text mining?
>

Yes,

The Statutory Instrument  came into force in June2014 following
recommendations In Prof Hargreaves' report. They basically provide for
"private research for non-commercial puposes". They allow miners to
override restrictive clauses inserted by publishers in contracts. However
it is unclear what can be published as a result of mining and it is unclear
how it interacts with the European sui generis directive on Database rights.

We are mining the literature under the new Instrument. However this has not
been tested in court.

A full and authoritative account is given by Prof Charles Oppenheim who is
an active adviser to TheContentMine


>  Challenge: My research blog and data verses are both fully open with no
> CC license at all. They are All Rights Reserved, and yet posted on the web,
> in the case of the dataverse deliberately so that people can go ahead and
> download and manipulate the data.  I challenge anyone to go ahead and try
> some text and data mining. If you think there are legalities preventing you
> from doing this, please explain what they are.
>

This language makes little sense. The material is not "fully open". It is
posted on your web site and could be withdrawn at any time. This is not
Open - it is temporarily free-to-view. You posses the copyright.
ContentMine inevitably requires copying from your site which is potentially
an infringement of copyright and in most jurisdictions, including Canada,
you would have the right to sue a ContentMiner.

Please accept that posting on the web, with whatever good intentions but
without explicit licence, gives no rights to any potential user.


> ...
>


> I think we need to understand what barriers exist to data and text mining
> and resolve them, rather than assuming that pushing everyone to make their
> work CC-BY is the answer.
>

We understand many of the barriers already and they prevent us mining the
content without an agreement. Only with CC-BY or CC0 can we do this knowing
that we can do it without the permission of the copyright owner. The UK
legislation gives UK researchers an additional resource, which we are now
using.


> For example, if my blog were CC-BY licensed, this wouldn't help with
> Wordpress not being set up to search the comments. Another example: there
> is nothing to stop the Licensor (as opposed to the downstream user) to put
> TPMs in a CC-BY or CC-0 work that would effectively prevent people from
> data and text mining.
>

A CC BY document, with only one copy behind the LIcensor's firewall is not
accessible and is therefore operationally closed. If one copy is published,
then it can be copied and cannot be revoked by the licensor.

>
>  If one is legally prevented from data and text mining works that are in
> the open, no doubt as a law-abiding citizen you're not using any internet
> search engine.
>

the legality of search engines is unclear in many cases.  Many have
agreements with large content providers - most STM publishers allow Google
to search and index their content. This does not mean that everyone can
spider everything and if you try it you will get pushback.


>
>

-- 
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: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Michael Eisen]

Nobody is insisting on perfect *solutions* - none of the current solutions
are even close to perfect - but what Heather was proposing was a change in
*goals*. There is nothing to be gained - and a lot to lose - by redefining
what we mean by open access (and thereby what we are trying to achieve) in
order to wrap its umbrella around every imperfect effort to achieve it.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Dana Roth 
wrote:

>  Taking Bernard's 'public road' analogy a little further ... one wonders
> his insistence on a 'perfect' solution isn't unfairly denigrating a
> reasonable (at least in the short term) alternative.
>
> The current situation, where the 'public NIH road' is closed temporarily
> (12 months) and one has to use a 'toll road' to access embargoed articles,
> seems much better than the situation before the creation of PubMed Central
> ... which now has 3.5 million freely available full text articles.
>
> Dana L. Roth
>  Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzr...@library.caltech.edu
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
>   --
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of
> brent...@ulg.ac.be [brent...@ulg.ac.be]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 01, 2015 11:02 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive
>
>   When I want to drive on a public road, whether it is closed or
> temporarily closed makes no difference to me. It is not open. I can't use
> it.
> Embargo is antinomic to open.
>
>  Bernard Rentier
>
> Le 1 juin 2015 à 18:26, Stevan Harnad  a écrit :
>
>   On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen 
> wrote:
>
>> There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals
>> and definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how
>> many times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make
>> articles freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The
>> belief that the NIH provides open access with its public access policy
>> provides real drag on the quest to provide actual open access. You can
>> argue about whether or not the policy is a good thing because it's a step
>> in the right direction, or a bad thing because it reifies delayed access.
>> But calling what the provide "open access" serves only to confuse people,
>> to weaken our objectives and give the still far more powerful forces who do
>> not want open access a way to resist pressure for it.
>>
>
>  It's nice to be able to agree with Mike Eisen.
>
>  Open Access (OA) comes in two degrees
> <http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/gratis-and-libre-open-access>: *Gratis
> OA* is immediate, permanent free online access and *Libre OA* is Gratis
> OA plus various re-use rights (up to CC-BY or even public domain).
>
>  What both degrees of OA share is that they are both immediate (and
> permanent) <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html>.
>
>  Otherwise, there's just Delayed (Embargoed) Access, which is no more
> "Open Access" than Toll Access is.
>
>  To treat Delayed Access as if it were a form of Open Access would be to
> reduce OA to meaninglessness (and would play into the hands of publishers
> who would like to see precisely that happen).
>
>  Stevan Harnad
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison <
>> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> hi David,
>>>
>>> Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are
>>> moving towards open access in slightly different ways are two different
>>> things. My post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and
>>> welcoming approach to open access.
>>>
>>> For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with
>>> editors of small journals that either are, or would like to be, open
>>> access. Behind the more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are
>>> probably much more than 10 thousand such editors, working hard to convince
>>> colleagues to move to open access, struggling to figure out how to do this
>>> in order to make ends meet. While some of us have been active and vocal in
>>> OA discussions and policy formulation, others have been quietly doing this
>>> work, often contributing a great deal of volunteer effort, over the years.
>>> We rarely hear from these people, but actively listening and figuring out
>>> ho

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Dana Roth]

Taking Bernard's 'public road' analogy a little further ... one wonders his 
insistence on a 'perfect' solution isn't unfairly denigrating a reasonable (at 
least in the short term) alternative.

The current situation, where the 'public NIH road' is closed temporarily (12 
months) and one has to use a 'toll road' to access embargoed articles, seems 
much better than the situation before the creation of PubMed Central ... which 
now has 3.5 million freely available full text articles.

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of 
brent...@ulg.ac.be [brent...@ulg.ac.be]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 11:02 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

When I want to drive on a public road, whether it is closed or temporarily 
closed makes no difference to me. It is not open. I can't use it.
Embargo is antinomic to open.

Bernard Rentier

Le 1 juin 2015 à 18:26, Stevan Harnad 
mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>> a écrit :

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen 
mailto:mbei...@gmail.com>> wrote:
There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals and 
definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how many 
times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make articles 
freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The belief that the 
NIH provides open access with its public access policy provides real drag on 
the quest to provide actual open access. You can argue about whether or not the 
policy is a good thing because it's a step in the right direction, or a bad 
thing because it reifies delayed access. But calling what the provide "open 
access" serves only to confuse people, to weaken our objectives and give the 
still far more powerful forces who do not want open access a way to resist 
pressure for it.

It's nice to be able to agree with Mike Eisen.

Open Access (OA) comes in two 
degrees<http://www.sparc.arl.org/resource/gratis-and-libre-open-access>: Gratis 
OA is immediate, permanent free online access and Libre OA is Gratis OA plus 
various re-use rights (up to CC-BY or even public domain).

What both degrees of OA share is that they are both immediate (and 
permanent)<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march05/harnad/03harnad.html>.

Otherwise, there's just Delayed (Embargoed) Access, which is no more "Open 
Access" than Toll Access is.

To treat Delayed Access as if it were a form of Open Access would be to reduce 
OA to meaninglessness (and would play into the hands of publishers who would 
like to see precisely that happen).

Stevan Harnad

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
hi David,

Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are moving 
towards open access in slightly different ways are two different things. My 
post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and welcoming approach to 
open access.

For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with editors of 
small journals that either are, or would like to be, open access. Behind the 
more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are probably much more than 10 
thousand such editors, working hard to convince colleagues to move to open 
access, struggling to figure out how to do this in order to make ends meet. 
While some of us have been active and vocal in OA discussions and policy 
formulation, others have been quietly doing this work, often contributing a 
great deal of volunteer effort, over the years. We rarely hear from these 
people, but actively listening and figuring out how to provide the support 
needed for the journals to thrive in an OA environment is in the best interests 
of continuing towards a fully open access and sustainable system. These people 
are OA heroes from my perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or 
not. In my experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a 
year and they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is 
needed to move to OA results in productive discussions.

OpenDOAR maintains a list of over 2,600 vetted open access archives:
http://opendoar.org/

OA archives have made a very great deal of work open access - so much so that 
counting it all is very hard! The thesis, for example, was until recently 
available in perhaps 1 or 2 print copies (that libraries were reluctant to lend 
as they were not replaceable) and microfilm. Today we are well on our way to 
open and online by default for the

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Bo-Christer Björk]

Dear all,

I agree with Heather that we should take a more inclusive approach to 
Open Access. For most ordinary academics and non-academics all that 
counts is getting access to particular articles they want to read that 
more often than not are identified via references.

The landscape is not black and white. Most of Green OA for reasons of 
embargoes and author behavior is delayed OA.

In a study we made a couple of years ago (Delayed Open Access – an 
overlooked high-impact category of openly available scientific literature
Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Björk)  we estimated that of the citations 
(not cited articles) in Web of Knowledge in the last available year:

80 % pointed to articles in closed subscription journals (of which some 
may be found as green copies)

6 % pointed to articles in immediate OA journals

14 % pointed to articles in delayed OA journals with embargo periods of 
max 12 months. This is due to the fact that many of the some 500 delayed 
OA journals that we found were high volume and impact.

The figures might look a bit different today but the overall picture is 
the same. To me it is clear that the reading of scholarly articles that 
you track via citations is a very important part of the all reading of 
scholarly articles.

Bo-Christer Björk

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Heather Morrison]

On 2015-06-01, at 2:02 PM, 
 wrote:

When I want to drive on a public road, whether it is closed or temporarily 
closed makes no difference to me. It is not open. I can't use it.
Embargo is antinomic to open.

Comment: would you agree then that all of the journals that make back issues 
freely available, and all of the publishers that allow self-archiving after a 
delay, might just as well go for an embargo that lasts the full length of 
copyright, and join the lobbyists who advocate for extending copyright terms? 

Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. 

best,

Heather 



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Heather Morrison]

Question and challenge

Question: Didn't the UK recently change its legislation explicitly to allow for 
data and text mining?

Challenge: My research blog and data verses are both fully open with no CC 
license at all. They are All Rights Reserved, and yet posted on the web, in the 
case of the dataverse deliberately so that people can go ahead and download and 
manipulate the data.  I challenge anyone to go ahead and try some text and data 
mining. If you think there are legalities preventing you from doing this, 
please explain what they are.

Blog:  sustainingknowledgecommons.org
OA APCs: http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/oaapc/

There probably are some barriers to text and data mining, however these have 
nothing to do with legalities. For example, this morning I was looking for Walt 
Crawford's comment on one of my posts. This didn't come up, but that's likely 
just because Wordpress is not set up to search comments.

I think we need to understand what barriers exist to data and text mining and 
resolve them, rather than assuming that pushing everyone to make their work 
CC-BY is the answer. For example, if my blog were CC-BY licensed, this wouldn't 
help with Wordpress not being set up to search the comments. Another example: 
there is nothing to stop the Licensor (as opposed to the downstream user) to 
put TPMs in a CC-BY or CC-0 work that would effectively prevent people from 
data and text mining.

If one is legally prevented from data and text mining works that are in the 
open, no doubt as a law-abiding citizen you're not using any internet search 
engine.

In my field, metadata is far more critical than legalities. I am sure that this 
is the case for other researchers. If others are doing work on journals, please 
include the title and ISSN - especially the ISSN as the key piece of data to 
facilitate remix in this particular area. A dataset that is CC-BY or CC-0 
without this information is of little to no use. This is the kind of discussion 
I think we need to have with respect to re-use.

best,

Heather


On 2015-06-01, at 10:59 AM, Peter Murray-Rust 
mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk>>
 wrote:


We are now at the point where anything less than full BOAI-compliance is 
seriously holding science and medicine back. We must have immediate

"free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, 
download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these 
articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software,..."

We've just run a workshop in Edinburgh in the Neuroscience group who are, inter 
alia, looking at Systematic review of animal experiments. One senior post doc 
has spent the last year reading 30,000 papers (sic) - that's one every 3 
minutes - classifying them into properly reported and badly reported tests. Our 
(Open) contentmine.org Text and Data Mining software 
can do this in a few seconds per paper. But ONLY if we are legally allowed to 
do this; and the only licences that allow this explicitly are CC-BY or CC0. (I 
have spent a considerable time on the legal aspects).

The main STM publishers are challenging the right to Mine Content and throwing 
money at lobbying MEPs and European Commission to have restrictive clauses 
added to potential leglislation. The primary defence against this in almost all 
countries is to have science and medicine published as BOAI-compliant CC-BY or 
CC0. Calling anything else "Open Access" is simply giving huge political 
support to the STM publishing industry and preventing scientists using modern 
tools.

P.




--
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 mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Heather Morrison]

As of today, 3.5 million articles are archived in PubMedCentral. 1,685 journals 
are providing all of their content to PMC.  This number is growing on a regular 
basis (it's one of the things I track in my Dramatic Growth of OA series).

It is true that this is less than 100% full, immediate open access to all of 
the world's medical literature, but the growth in both numbers and percentages 
is ongoing. This progress is something I prefer to applaud and celebrate on a 
regular basis. Noticing the numbers of journals that continue to join PMC as 
full participation journals, reduce and eliminate embargo periods is a great 
way to encourage other journals to follow suit, as well as an appropriate if 
indirect well-deserved "thank you" to the good people at NIH and at the 
journals who are working hard to make this happen.

best,

Heather


On 2015-06-01, at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen 
mailto:mbei...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:

There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals and 
definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how many 
times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make articles 
freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The belief that the 
NIH provides open access with its public access policy provides real drag on 
the quest to provide actual open access. You can argue about whether or not the 
policy is a good thing because it's a step in the right direction, or a bad 
thing because it reifies delayed access. But calling what the provide "open 
access" serves only to confuse people, to weaken our objectives and give the 
still far more powerful forces who do not want open access a way to resist 
pressure for it.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
hi David,

Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are moving 
towards open access in slightly different ways are two different things. My 
post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and welcoming approach to 
open access.

For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with editors of 
small journals that either are, or would like to be, open access. Behind the 
more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are probably much more than 10 
thousand such editors, working hard to convince colleagues to move to open 
access, struggling to figure out how to do this in order to make ends meet. 
While some of us have been active and vocal in OA discussions and policy 
formulation, others have been quietly doing this work, often contributing a 
great deal of volunteer effort, over the years. We rarely hear from these 
people, but actively listening and figuring out how to provide the support 
needed for the journals to thrive in an OA environment is in the best interests 
of continuing towards a fully open access and sustainable system. These people 
are OA heroes from my perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or 
not. In my experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a 
year and they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is 
needed to move to OA results in productive discussions.

OpenDOAR maintains a list of over 2,600 vetted open access archives:
http://opendoar.org/

OA archives have made a very great deal of work open access - so much so that 
counting it all is very hard! The thesis, for example, was until recently 
available in perhaps 1 or 2 print copies (that libraries were reluctant to lend 
as they were not replaceable) and microfilm. Today we are well on our way to 
open and online by default for the thesis. arXiv in effect flipped high energy 
physics to full preprint OA close to two decades ago. PubMed was an early OA 
success story making the Medline index available for free. In the 1990's I 
remember how big a deal it was for a small Canadian university college to buy 
access to Medline, and even then having access restricted to senior students in 
biology. Today it's free for everyone with internet access. So is Medline Plus, 
which provides high quality free consumer health information. PubMedCentral 
both makes the medical literature available and ensures that it is preserved, 
working with both authors and journals to make this happen. By my calculations, 
30% of the literature indexed in PubMed is freely available through PubMed 2 
years after publication (all literature, no restrictions based on funder 
policy); 32% after 3 years. For the data, see the Dramatic Growth of Open 
Dataverse http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/dgoa download the latest 
spreadsheet and go to the PMC Free tab.

These archives have happened because librarians and others have fought for the 
resources to develop the archives, often the policies (there are a great many 
more thesis deposit policies than are listed in ROARMAP), and educating anyone 
who would listen about OA. Many smart people worked on the concept and 
t

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[brentier]

When I want to drive on a public road, whether it is closed or temporarily 
closed makes no difference to me. It is not open. I can't use it.
Embargo is antinomic to open.

Bernard Rentier

> Le 1 juin 2015 à 18:26, Stevan Harnad  a écrit :
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen  wrote:
>> There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals 
>> and definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how 
>> many times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make 
>> articles freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The 
>> belief that the NIH provides open access with its public access policy 
>> provides real drag on the quest to provide actual open access. You can argue 
>> about whether or not the policy is a good thing because it's a step in the 
>> right direction, or a bad thing because it reifies delayed access. But 
>> calling what the provide "open access" serves only to confuse people, to 
>> weaken our objectives and give the still far more powerful forces who do not 
>> want open access a way to resist pressure for it. 
> 
> It's nice to be able to agree with Mike Eisen.
> 
> Open Access (OA) comes in two degrees: Gratis OA is immediate, permanent free 
> online access and Libre OA is Gratis OA plus various re-use rights (up to 
> CC-BY or even public domain).
> 
> What both degrees of OA share is that they are both immediate (and permanent).
> 
> Otherwise, there's just Delayed (Embargoed) Access, which is no more "Open 
> Access" than Toll Access is.
> 
> To treat Delayed Access as if it were a form of Open Access would be to 
> reduce OA to meaninglessness (and would play into the hands of publishers who 
> would like to see precisely that happen).
> 
> Stevan Harnad 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison 
>>>  wrote:
>>> hi David,
>>> 
>>> Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are 
>>> moving towards open access in slightly different ways are two different 
>>> things. My post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and 
>>> welcoming approach to open access.
>>> 
>>> For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with 
>>> editors of small journals that either are, or would like to be, open 
>>> access. Behind the more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are 
>>> probably much more than 10 thousand such editors, working hard to convince 
>>> colleagues to move to open access, struggling to figure out how to do this 
>>> in order to make ends meet. While some of us have been active and vocal in 
>>> OA discussions and policy formulation, others have been quietly doing this 
>>> work, often contributing a great deal of volunteer effort, over the years. 
>>> We rarely hear from these people, but actively listening and figuring out 
>>> how to provide the support needed for the journals to thrive in an OA 
>>> environment is in the best interests of continuing towards a fully open 
>>> access and sustainable system. These people are OA heroes from my 
>>> perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or not. In my 
>>> experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a year and 
>>> they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is needed 
>>> to move to OA results in productive discussions.
>>> 
>>> OpenDOAR maintains a list of over 2,600 vetted open access archives:
>>> http://opendoar.org/
>>> 
>>> OA archives have made a very great deal of work open access - so much so 
>>> that counting it all is very hard! The thesis, for example, was until 
>>> recently available in perhaps 1 or 2 print copies (that libraries were 
>>> reluctant to lend as they were not replaceable) and microfilm. Today we are 
>>> well on our way to open and online by default for the thesis. arXiv in 
>>> effect flipped high energy physics to full preprint OA close to two decades 
>>> ago. PubMed was an early OA success story making the Medline index 
>>> available for free. In the 1990's I remember how big a deal it was for a 
>>> small Canadian university college to buy access to Medline, and even then 
>>> having access restricted to senior students in biology. Today it's free for 
>>> everyone with internet access. So is Medline Plus, which provides high 
>>> quality free consumer health information. PubMedCentral both makes the 
>>> medical literature available and ensures that it is preserved, working with 
>>> both authors and journals to make this happen. By my calculations, 30% of 
>>> the literature indexed in PubMed is freely available through PubMed 2 years 
>>> after publication (all literature, no restrictions based on funder policy); 
>>> 32% after 3 years. For the data, see the Dramatic Growth of Open Dataverse 
>>> http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/dgoa download the latest 
>>> spreadsheet and go to the PMC Free tab.
>>> 
>>> These archives have happened because librarians and others have fought fo

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Michael Eisen  wrote:

> There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals
> and definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how
> many times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make
> articles freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The
> belief that the NIH provides open access with its public access policy
> provides real drag on the quest to provide actual open access. You can
> argue about whether or not the policy is a good thing because it's a step
> in the right direction, or a bad thing because it reifies delayed access.
> But calling what the provide "open access" serves only to confuse people,
> to weaken our objectives and give the still far more powerful forces who do
> not want open access a way to resist pressure for it.
>

It's nice to be able to agree with Mike Eisen.

Open Access (OA) comes in two degrees
: *Gratis
OA* is immediate, permanent free online access and *Libre OA* is Gratis OA
plus various re-use rights (up to CC-BY or even public domain).

What both degrees of OA share is that they are both immediate (and
permanent) .

Otherwise, there's just Delayed (Embargoed) Access, which is no more "Open
Access" than Toll Access is.

To treat Delayed Access as if it were a form of Open Access would be to
reduce OA to meaninglessness (and would play into the hands of publishers
who would like to see precisely that happen).

Stevan Harnad

>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison <
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
>
>> hi David,
>>
>> Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are
>> moving towards open access in slightly different ways are two different
>> things. My post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and
>> welcoming approach to open access.
>>
>> For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with
>> editors of small journals that either are, or would like to be, open
>> access. Behind the more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are
>> probably much more than 10 thousand such editors, working hard to convince
>> colleagues to move to open access, struggling to figure out how to do this
>> in order to make ends meet. While some of us have been active and vocal in
>> OA discussions and policy formulation, others have been quietly doing this
>> work, often contributing a great deal of volunteer effort, over the years.
>> We rarely hear from these people, but actively listening and figuring out
>> how to provide the support needed for the journals to thrive in an OA
>> environment is in the best interests of continuing towards a fully open
>> access and sustainable system. These people are OA heroes from my
>> perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or not. In my
>> experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a year and
>> they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is needed
>> to move to OA results in productive discussions.
>>
>> OpenDOAR maintains a list of over 2,600 vetted open access archives:
>> http://opendoar.org/
>>
>> OA archives have made a very great deal of work open access - so much so
>> that counting it all is very hard! The thesis, for example, was until
>> recently available in perhaps 1 or 2 print copies (that libraries were
>> reluctant to lend as they were not replaceable) and microfilm. Today we are
>> well on our way to open and online by default for the thesis. arXiv in
>> effect flipped high energy physics to full preprint OA close to two decades
>> ago. PubMed was an early OA success story making the Medline index
>> available for free. In the 1990's I remember how big a deal it was for a
>> small Canadian university college to buy access to Medline, and even then
>> having access restricted to senior students in biology. Today it's free for
>> everyone with internet access. So is Medline Plus, which provides high
>> quality free consumer health information. PubMedCentral both makes the
>> medical literature available and ensures that it is preserved, working with
>> both authors and journals to make this happen. By my calculations, 30% of
>> the literature indexed in PubMed is freely available through PubMed 2 years
>> after publication (all literature, no restrictions based on funder policy);
>> 32% after 3 years. For the data, see the Dramatic Growth of Open Dataverse
>> http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/dgoa download the latest
>> spreadsheet and go to the PMC Free tab.
>>
>> These archives have happened because librarians and others have fought
>> for the resources to develop the archives, often the policies (there are a
>> great many more thesis deposit policies than are listed in ROARMAP), and
>> educating anyone who would listen about OA. Many smart people worked on the
>> concept an

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Peter Murray-Rust]

We are now at the point where anything less than full BOAI-compliance is
seriously holding science and medicine back. We must have immediate

"free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read,
download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of
these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software,..."

We've just run a workshop in Edinburgh in the Neuroscience group who are,
inter alia, looking at Systematic review of animal experiments. One senior
post doc has spent the last year reading 30,000 papers (sic) - that's one
every 3 minutes - classifying them into properly reported and badly
reported tests. Our (Open) contentmine.org Text and Data Mining software
can do this in a few seconds per paper. But ONLY if we are legally allowed
to do this; and the only licences that allow this explicitly are CC-BY or
CC0. (I have spent a considerable time on the legal aspects).

The main STM publishers are challenging the right to Mine Content and
throwing money at lobbying MEPs and European Commission to have restrictive
clauses added to potential leglislation. The primary defence against this
in almost all countries is to have science and medicine published as
BOAI-compliant CC-BY or CC0. Calling anything else "Open Access" is simply
giving huge political support to the STM publishing industry and preventing
scientists using modern tools.

P.




-- 
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: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Michael Eisen]

There's a difference between trying to be inclusive, and redefining goals
and definitions to the point of being meaningless. I can not tell you how
many times I hear that the NIH provides open access because they make
articles freely available after a year. This is not just semantics. The
belief that the NIH provides open access with its public access policy
provides real drag on the quest to provide actual open access. You can
argue about whether or not the policy is a good thing because it's a step
in the right direction, or a bad thing because it reifies delayed access.
But calling what the provide "open access" serves only to confuse people,
to weaken our objectives and give the still far more powerful forces who do
not want open access a way to resist pressure for it.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Heather Morrison <
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:

> hi David,
>
> Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are
> moving towards open access in slightly different ways are two different
> things. My post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and
> welcoming approach to open access.
>
> For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with
> editors of small journals that either are, or would like to be, open
> access. Behind the more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are
> probably much more than 10 thousand such editors, working hard to convince
> colleagues to move to open access, struggling to figure out how to do this
> in order to make ends meet. While some of us have been active and vocal in
> OA discussions and policy formulation, others have been quietly doing this
> work, often contributing a great deal of volunteer effort, over the years.
> We rarely hear from these people, but actively listening and figuring out
> how to provide the support needed for the journals to thrive in an OA
> environment is in the best interests of continuing towards a fully open
> access and sustainable system. These people are OA heroes from my
> perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or not. In my
> experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a year and
> they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is needed
> to move to OA results in productive discussions.
>
> OpenDOAR maintains a list of over 2,600 vetted open access archives:
> http://opendoar.org/
>
> OA archives have made a very great deal of work open access - so much so
> that counting it all is very hard! The thesis, for example, was until
> recently available in perhaps 1 or 2 print copies (that libraries were
> reluctant to lend as they were not replaceable) and microfilm. Today we are
> well on our way to open and online by default for the thesis. arXiv in
> effect flipped high energy physics to full preprint OA close to two decades
> ago. PubMed was an early OA success story making the Medline index
> available for free. In the 1990's I remember how big a deal it was for a
> small Canadian university college to buy access to Medline, and even then
> having access restricted to senior students in biology. Today it's free for
> everyone with internet access. So is Medline Plus, which provides high
> quality free consumer health information. PubMedCentral both makes the
> medical literature available and ensures that it is preserved, working with
> both authors and journals to make this happen. By my calculations, 30% of
> the literature indexed in PubMed is freely available through PubMed 2 years
> after publication (all literature, no restrictions based on funder policy);
> 32% after 3 years. For the data, see the Dramatic Growth of Open Dataverse
> http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/dgoa download the latest
> spreadsheet and go to the PMC Free tab.
>
> These archives have happened because librarians and others have fought for
> the resources to develop the archives, often the policies (there are a
> great many more thesis deposit policies than are listed in ROARMAP), and
> educating anyone who would listen about OA. Many smart people worked on the
> concept and technology, and many if by no means all authors have taken the
> time to deposit their works.
>
> In the early years, the OA movement really was small, and it is a good
> thing that some of us stepped up to defend OA against attacks. Today I
> think we should ask ourselves whether this defensiveness has become a
> habit. Are we starting to snap at OA friends as much as OA detractors? Are
> we over-reacting? The Elsevier archiving policy change is unfortunate, a
> step in the wrong direction, and fully merits critique. But this is not the
> same level of wrongfulness as Elsevier's lobbying for the Research Works
> Act a few years ago, which would have prevented the US from enacting public
> access legislation.
>
> respectfully,
>
> Heather
>
> On 2015-06-01, at 5:09 AM, David Prosser wrote:
>
> >
> > Ever since ‘Open Access’ was first defined there have been people who
> hav

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[Heather Morrison]

hi David,

Redefining open access and understanding that a great many people are moving 
towards open access in slightly different ways are two different things. My 
post will focus on the benefits of a more inclusive and welcoming approach to 
open access. 

For example, I have been conducting interviews and focus groups with editors of 
small journals that either are, or would like to be, open access. Behind the 
more than 10 thousand journals listed in DOAJ are probably much more than 10 
thousand such editors, working hard to convince colleagues to move to open 
access, struggling to figure out how to do this in order to make ends meet. 
While some of us have been active and vocal in OA discussions and policy 
formulation, others have been quietly doing this work, often contributing a 
great deal of volunteer effort, over the years. We rarely hear from these 
people, but actively listening and figuring out how to provide the support 
needed for the journals to thrive in an OA environment is in the best interests 
of continuing towards a fully open access and sustainable system. These people 
are OA heroes from my perspective, whether their journal is currently OA or 
not. In my experience, when someone says their journal is free online after a 
year and they would like to move to OA, asking about the barriers and what is 
needed to move to OA results in productive discussions. 

OpenDOAR maintains a list of over 2,600 vetted open access archives:
http://opendoar.org/

OA archives have made a very great deal of work open access - so much so that 
counting it all is very hard! The thesis, for example, was until recently 
available in perhaps 1 or 2 print copies (that libraries were reluctant to lend 
as they were not replaceable) and microfilm. Today we are well on our way to 
open and online by default for the thesis. arXiv in effect flipped high energy 
physics to full preprint OA close to two decades ago. PubMed was an early OA 
success story making the Medline index available for free. In the 1990's I 
remember how big a deal it was for a small Canadian university college to buy 
access to Medline, and even then having access restricted to senior students in 
biology. Today it's free for everyone with internet access. So is Medline Plus, 
which provides high quality free consumer health information. PubMedCentral 
both makes the medical literature available and ensures that it is preserved, 
working with both authors and journals to make this happen. By my calculations, 
30% of the literature indexed in PubMed is freely available through PubMed 2 
years after publication (all literature, no restrictions based on funder 
policy); 32% after 3 years. For the data, see the Dramatic Growth of Open 
Dataverse http://dataverse.scholarsportal.info/dvn/dv/dgoa download the latest 
spreadsheet and go to the PMC Free tab.

These archives have happened because librarians and others have fought for the 
resources to develop the archives, often the policies (there are a great many 
more thesis deposit policies than are listed in ROARMAP), and educating anyone 
who would listen about OA. Many smart people worked on the concept and 
technology, and many if by no means all authors have taken the time to deposit 
their works.

In the early years, the OA movement really was small, and it is a good thing 
that some of us stepped up to defend OA against attacks. Today I think we 
should ask ourselves whether this defensiveness has become a habit. Are we 
starting to snap at OA friends as much as OA detractors? Are we over-reacting? 
The Elsevier archiving policy change is unfortunate, a step in the wrong 
direction, and fully merits critique. But this is not the same level of 
wrongfulness as Elsevier's lobbying for the Research Works Act a few years ago, 
which would have prevented the US from enacting public access legislation. 

respectfully,

Heather 

On 2015-06-01, at 5:09 AM, David Prosser wrote:

> 
> Ever since ‘Open Access’ was first defined there have been people who have 
> wanted to redefine it.  Heather is the latest of these.  The trouble is, by 
> broadening the definition of ‘Open Access’ it is in danger of becoming 
> meaningless.
> 
> So, Heather wants to include journals who make their content freely available 
> after one or two years.  I certainly agree that free access after two years 
> is better than no free access after two years, but where do we draw the line 
> - is a five year embargo ‘Open Access'? Ten? Fifty?  And Heather has warned 
> us of the hypothetical dangers of CC-BY papers being re-enclosed, but wants 
> us to consider entire archives where free access can be turned off at the 
> flick of a switch at the whim of the publisher as being open access!
> 
> I’m all for celebrating free archives, and if somebody wants to compile a 
> list then that would be great - but let’s not call it ‘Open Access’.  The 
> trouble with all the attempts to redefine ‘Open Access’ is that nobody has 
> c

[GOAL] Re: One way to expand the OA movement: be more inclusive

[David Prosser]

Ever since ‘Open Access’ was first defined there have been people who have 
wanted to redefine it.  Heather is the latest of these.  The trouble is, by 
broadening the definition of ‘Open Access’ it is in danger of becoming 
meaningless.

So, Heather wants to include journals who make their content freely available 
after one or two years.  I certainly agree that free access after two years is 
better than no free access after two years, but where do we draw the line - is 
a five year embargo ‘Open Access'? Ten? Fifty?  And Heather has warned us of 
the hypothetical dangers of CC-BY papers being re-enclosed, but wants us to 
consider entire archives where free access can be turned off at the flick of a 
switch at the whim of the publisher as being open access!

I’m all for celebrating free archives, and if somebody wants to compile a list 
then that would be great - but let’s not call it ‘Open Access’.  The trouble 
with all the attempts to redefine ‘Open Access’ is that nobody has come up with 
a definition that improves on that of the Budapest Open Access Initiative of 
2002.

Heather’s final paragraph is frankly baffling.  I know of nobody who feels that 
'the OA movement consists of the small group of people who have been to 
meetings in Budapest’.  What I do know is that many of those who attended the 
first meeting in 2002 where the definition of Open Access was thrashed out have 
spend a huge amount of their time over the past 13 years travelling the world 
promoting open access.  Often, especially in the early years, to audiences that 
were in single-figures and/or overtly hostile.  The fact that there is an OA 
movement today is, in great part, thanks to the inspiring efforts of those 
early pioneers (together with others).  They have advocated for repositories, 
for mandates, for open source software to allow cheaper journal publishing, for 
more liberal licensing, etc., etc.   Denigrating them by implication is quite 
ridiculous revisionism.  (And for full disclosure, I attended the 10th 
anniversary meeting in Budapest, where we were able to celebrate a vibrant, 
international OA movement.)

David



On 30 May 2015, at 20:03, Heather Morrison  wrote:

> What if, instead of condemning the many people who are doing their best to 
> provide the most open access they feel they can, the OA movement were to be 
> more inclusive? For example, DOAJ excludes journals that make their work 
> freely available after one or two years' embargo. I realize and agree that we 
> want immediate OA, but the vast majority of such journals are published by 
> people who are completely in favour of open access but just haven't figured 
> out how to make the economics work for them. 
> 
> The opposite of open access is closed access. The Big Chill report on the 
> silencing of federal scientists in Canada is a good illustration. Excerpt: 
> "the survey [of Canadian federal scientists] ...found that nearly one-quarter 
> (24%) of respondents had been directly asked to exclude or alter information 
> for non-scientific reasons and that over one-third (37%) had been prevented 
> in the past five years from responding to questions from the public and 
> media" from: 
> http://www.pipsc.ca/portal/page/portal/website/issues/science/bigchill
> 
> I understand that the U.S. has had similar problems with political 
> interference with science, e.g. states such as Florida having legislature 
> forbidding reference to climate change (example here: 
> http://fcir.org/2015/03/08/in-florida-officials-ban-term-climate-change/)
> 
> Even without any political interference, works under toll access can be 
> locked down for the full term of copyright. In the U.S. that's life of the 
> author plus 70 years. If a work is written 30 years before an author dies, 
> that's a century. The great many works freely available within a year or a 
> few of publication should be understood as a huge success, not a failure. 
> 
> If the OA movement consists of the small group of people who have been to 
> meetings in Budapest [sometimes people on this list talk as if this were the 
> case],  that's a small movement indeed and not likely to grow very much. On 
> the other hand, if the OA movement is seen as the millions of authors who 
> have provided free access to their own work (however they did this), the 
> thousands of journals providing free access (whether we think they are 
> perfect in this or not), the thousands of repositories - that's a huge global 
> movement, one that we can build upon to continue and grow the momentum to 
> date. 
> 
> best,
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Heather Morrison
> Assistant Professor
> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
> University of Ottawa
> http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org