[GOAL] Re: The Titanium Road response
I totally agree with Stevan.  Just one point of clarification. While I think the Titanium Road is a very useful addition to the OA arsenal, I continue to promote ID/OA institutional repositories, and even the growth of open access journals as appropriate. My approach is eclectic.  Dear Father Christmas, what I would like for 2012 is 100% OA to be adopted as policy by all researchers.  Best wishes to the list for the holiday season.  Arthur Sale  From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Saturday, 24 December 2011 1:04 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Titanium Road response  For the perplexed reader who wonders what on earth two OA advocates -- long on the same team, and still on the same team -- are disagreeing about: it's just about where the time and effort of OA advocates is best invested.  I am for redoubling efforts to persuade institutions and funders to adopt Green OA Mandates (now with the help of EOS), and Arthur is for encouraging researchers to adopt the Titanium Technology (e.g. Mendeley) which could provide OA as a side-effect (if adopted).  That's all.  Both of us would like to see OA prevail before we become nitrogen nourishing future generations.  I wish Arthur the best of luck in promoting Titanium. I'm sure he does not wish me any less in promoting Green OA mandates.  Peace.  Stevan Harnad  [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: The Titanium Road response
I totally agree with Stevan. Just one point of clarification. While I think the Titanium Road is a very useful addition to the OA arsenal, I continue to promote ID/OA institutional repositories, and even the growth of open access journals as appropriate. My approach is eclectic. Dear Father Christmas, what I would like for 2012 is 100% OA to be adopted as policy by all researchers. Best wishes to the list for the holiday season. Arthur Sale From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Saturday, 24 December 2011 1:04 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Titanium Road response For the perplexed reader who wonders what on earth two OA advocates -- long on the same team, and still on the same team -- are disagreeing about: it's just about where the time and effort of OA advocates is best invested. I am for redoubling efforts to persuade institutions and funders to adopt Green OA Mandates (now with the help of EOS), and Arthur is for encouraging researchers to adopt the Titanium Technology (e.g. Mendeley) which could provide OA as a side-effect (if adopted). That's all. Both of us would like to see OA prevail before we become nitrogen nourishing future generations. I wish Arthur the best of luck in promoting Titanium. I'm sure he does not wish me any less in promoting Green OA mandates. Peace. Stevan Harnad -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20111224/0dfb915f/attachment.html
[GOAL] Re: The Titanium Road response
For the perplexed reader who wonders what on earth two OA advocates -- long on the same team, and still on the same team -- are disagreeing about: it's just about where the time and effort of OA advocates is best invested. I am for redoubling efforts to persuade institutions and funders to adopt Green OA Mandates (now with the help of EOS), and Arthur is for encouraging researchers to adopt the Titanium Technology (e.g. Mendeley) which could provide OA as a side-effect (if adopted). That's all. Both of us would like to see OA prevail before we become nitrogen nourishing future generations. I wish Arthur the best of luck in promoting Titanium. I'm sure he does not wish me any less in promoting Green OA mandates. Peace. Stevan Harnad On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Arthur Sale wrote: [ARTHUR] It seems that I am back on-list again, so here is a response to another chunk of Stevanâs response. I find it interesting to argue with Stevan, because we are both on the same side of wanting OA as soon as possible and believing it is well overdue. If I can characterise the debate, Stevan wants to keep it focused obsessively on ID/OA institutional repositories (which I believe from his recent comments he would now characterize as just a subclass of the Green Road), whereas I have become convinced that this approach will not suffice in my lifetime and think we should pursue a multi-factorial approach (which includes my Titanium Road).  Here are my responses interspersed after selected bits of Stevanâs last post. I have tried to condense this because otherwise no-one will read it. My apologies to him if I quote him out of context. Unfortunately, it is difficult to reconstruct a reply email from the archive. I have done my best.  On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Arthur Sale wrote:  *** > > ** The more important issue is that I have failed to get across to him > that the Titanium Road has nothing to do with researcher voluntarism. >  Volunteerism means that *in order to make their papers OA, researchers have to do something that they are not currently doing*, of their own accord, not because of an institutional or funder requirement.  Using new tools, voluntarily, is volunteerism.  [ARTHUR] This is more word-play and inventing a definition. A volunteer has clear options: to volunteer to do something, or do nothing at all. âVolunteerâ is not the same as âchoose between optionsâ. It may be useful to look at the origin of the word in the Oxford English Dictionary: the primary meaning is that of someone who volunteers for military service, as opposed to those who have no choice. Or do not have to choose. Researchers who self-archive in an institutional repository are either volunteers or conscripts. Users of Titanium Road apps are neither.   > The Green Road also does, because the researcher has to volunteer to > undertake unnatural extra work to deposit works in the institutional > repository through a clunky interface. >  The volunteer step in Green OA self-archiving is: Choosing to self-archive.  [ARTHUR] We both agree on that: volunteering to do the extra work in self-archiving.  The "clunkiness" of the interface is a technological matter. Not everyone would agree that filling out a few obvious form-interface fields (login, password, author, title, journal, date, etc.) is so "clunky" or "unnatural" in a day when we are filling out online forms all the time. It's just a few minutes' worth of keystrokes.  But my friend Arthur is profoundly mistaken if he thinks that the reason why over 80% of researchers are *not* voluntarily self-archiving today is because they find it too "clunky" to do the keystrokes.  [ARTHUR] But is it the reason they overwhelmingly give up after having been persuaded to try it?  I wish it were that simple. But in fact there are at least 38 reasons researchers why do not voluntarily self-archive -- http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries -- and their worry that doing so might be "clunky" is just one of them (and usually based on never even having tried it out).  [ARTHUR] See above. Frankly I resent being characterized at complaining about keystrokes, when the Titanium Road has little to do with keystrokes. It is about âdoing what comes naturally.â  [omitted, more keystroke rhetoric.]  [ARTHUR] I have to waste time answe
[GOAL] Re: The Titanium Road response
For the perplexed reader who wonders what on earth two OA advocates -- long on the same team, and still on the same team -- are disagreeing about: *it's just about where the time and effort of OA advocates is best invested*. I am for redoubling efforts to persuade institutions and funders to adopt Green OA Mandates (now with the help of EOS), and Arthur is for encouraging researchers to adopt the Titanium Technology (e.g. Mendeley) which could provide OA as a side-effect (if adopted). That's all. Both of us would like to see OA prevail before we become nitrogen nourishing future generations. I wish Arthur the best of luck in promoting Titanium. I'm sure he does not wish me any less in promoting Green OA mandates. Peace. Stevan Harnad On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Arthur Sale wrote: > [ARTHUR] It seems that I am back on-list again, so here is a response to > another chunk of Stevan?s response. I find it interesting to argue with > Stevan, because we are both on the same side of wanting OA as soon as > possible and believing it is well overdue. If I can characterise the > debate, Stevan wants to keep it focused obsessively on ID/OA institutional > repositories (which I believe from his recent comments he would now > characterize as just a subclass of the Green Road), whereas I have become > convinced that this approach will not suffice in my lifetime and think we > should pursue a multi-factorial approach (which includes my Titanium Road). > > > ** ** > > Here are my responses interspersed after selected bits of Stevan?s last > post. I have tried to condense this because otherwise no-one will read it. > My apologies to him if I quote him out of context. Unfortunately, it is > difficult to reconstruct a reply email from the archive. I have done my > best. > > ** ** > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Arthur Sale > wrote: > > ** ** > > *** > > >** ** > > > ** The more important issue is that I have failed to get across to him** > ** > > > that the Titanium Road has nothing to do with researcher voluntarism.*** > * > > >** ** > > ** ** > > Volunteerism means that *in order to make their papers OA, researchers have > > > to do something that they are not currently doing*, of their own accord,** > ** > > not because of an institutional or funder requirement. > > ** ** > > Using new tools, voluntarily, is volunteerism. > > ** ** > > [ARTHUR] This is more word-play and inventing a definition. A volunteer > has clear options: to volunteer to do something, or do nothing at all. > ?Volunteer? is not the same as ?choose between options?. It may be useful > to look at the origin of the word in the Oxford English Dictionary: the > primary meaning is that of someone who volunteers for military service, as > opposed to those who have no choice. Or do not have to choose. Researchers > who self-archive in an institutional repository are either volunteers or > conscripts. Users of Titanium Road apps are neither. > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > The Green Road also does, because the researcher has to volunteer to > > > undertake unnatural extra work to deposit works in the institutional > > > repository through a clunky interface. > > >** ** > > ** ** > > The volunteer step in Green OA self-archiving is: Choosing to self-archive. > > > ** ** > > [ARTHUR] We both agree on that: volunteering to do the extra work in > self-archiving. > > ** ** > > The "clunkiness" of the interface is a technological matter. Not everyone* > *** > > would agree that filling out a few obvious form-interface fields (login,** > ** > > password, author, title, journal, date, etc.) is so "clunky" or "unnatural" > > > in a day when we are filling out online forms all the time. It's just a few > > > minutes' worth of keystrokes. > > ** ** > > But my friend Arthur is profoundly mistaken if he thinks that the reason** > ** > > why over 80% of researchers are *not* voluntarily self-archiving today is* > *** > > because they find it too "clunky" to do the keystrokes. > > ** ** > > [ARTHUR] But is it the reason they overwhelmingly give up after having > been persuaded to try it? > > ** ** > > I wish it were that simple. But in fact there are at least 38 reasons > > researchers why do not voluntarily self-archive -- > > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries -- and their worry* > *** > > that doing so might be "clunky" is just one of them (and usually based on* > *** > > never even having tried it out). > > ** ** > > [ARTHUR] See above. Frankly I resent being characterized at complaining > about keystrokes, when the Titanium Road has little to do with keystrokes. > It is about ?doing what comes naturally.? > > ** ** > > [omitted, more keystroke rhetoric.] > > ** ** > > [ARTHUR] I have to waste time answering this. Simplifying things to > keystrokes is inappropriate. It *is* just extra work. I know it takes me 5 > minutes extra, but that is 5 m
