Stevan,
First, for the sake of clarity, can we just agree that, whatever relative
value you place on the two, free access and open access are not equivalent
and that it does noone any good to confuse the two.
Free access gives all potential users immediate and permanent toll-free
access to the text at a single fixed point on the internet (e.g. a
self-archive or a journal website). Copyright would (in general) reside with
authors or their assignee, and users would have fair use rights, such as the
right to read, print, crawl and mine this copy of the article, but in
general would not have any further rights, such as the right to redistribute
or make derivative works.
Open access grants all of the rights inherrent to free access, but the
copyright holders grant (by signing some form of license) all users
additional rights, especially the right to redistribute and make derivative
works, in general asking only that the original work be properly cited. (The
different definitions of open access are not identical, but all essentially
say this).
I hope we can agree that these are not equivalent, so that we can get onto
the more important question, which is is this a meaningful difference - that
is, are the additional rights given to users under open access meaningful,
and does granting them benefit authors, readers and the research community
in general. Obviously, you think the answer is no, while I think it is yes.
I address your 6 points below, although I think that you are conflating two
different points.
1) Open access is unnecessary - everything that a user would want to do with
a paper they can do with free access.
2) Open access is an obstacle to free access - demanding that publishers
provide open access delays or obstructs their providing free access.
I hope my answers below address why I think these are both incorrect.
> So here is my list, again:
>
> (1) UBIQUITOUS DIRECT ONLINE ACCESS MAKES DERIVATIVE ACCESS SUPERFLUOUS:
> Once the full-text is immediately, permanently, and ubiquitously
> (i.e., webwide) accessible toll-free, so any user anywhere, any time,
> can read the full-text on-screen, download it, store it, print it off,
> search/grep it, computationally process it, etc. -- which any user can
> do if the author self-archives it -- the further rights and uses that
> distinguish "free" from "open" become either moot or supererogatory:
>
If all you are concerned about is getting toll free access to papers - in
the form that they exist in self-archives or on journal websites - then the
distinction between free and open is superfluous. However many readers
(myself included) like to read articles in a familiar and user-friendly
format that is often very different from the deposited version (in my
opinion, this is one of the reasons that self-archiving isn't as popular as
it should be). It is possible to take all of the free access articles and
convert them into a more flexible format (e.g. the publishing XML being used
now by PubMed Central) where users could control the way in which the text
is rendered. I believe many readers would value this option. However, under
free-access this is not possible without getting permission from every
author or copyright holder, while under open access this is not only
allowed, it is encouraged. Ditto for someone who wants to translate into
another language (by machine or by hand) a body of free access works.
It seems to me that there are two issues here. 1) Rights description. Many
authors who make their works freely available through self-archiving would
be happy to allow these uses, but don't currently have a way to say this.
This is why it is important to PLoS that we use the creative commons license
that describes user rights in advance. I see that the open archives group
has launched an effort to embed rights descriptions with text, so I think
this case will be covered. 2) Rights restictions by publishers. I think you
feel that many publishers are/would be willing to allow self-archiving, but
only on the condition that they retain all other rights to the text, and
that if they are allowed to do this, then they would be willing to provide
free access. The problem, in my mind, is that this would prevent the kinds
of uses that I describe above (which are, in my opinion, only the tip of the
iceberg). You apparently think that getting free-access is the most
important thing, even if the manner of achieving free access precludes
optimal use of the material, while I think this is a needless compromise of
the interests of the scientific community and the public to the narrow
commercial interest of publishers. Again, this is an open argument, but it's
important not to glaze over this argument by pretending that free and open
access are equivalent.
> (2) NO EXTRA DOWNLOAD/PRINT RIGHTS NEEDED, OR NEED BE SPECIFIED: Users
> don't need a further specified right to download, store, process or
> print off any of the other material that they can download, store and
> print off from the web -- as long as the material is itself not pirated
> by another consumer, but provided by its own author, as is the case with
> one's own self-archived journal articles.
What you are saying, in essence, is that fair use gives all users all the
rights they need, and that there is no need to specify any additional
rights. This is simply incorrect, a good example of a use that is not
allowed under fair use is the inclusion of text in course readers, which (at
least in the US) is not covered by fair use. Nor are other forms of
aggregation. For example, I might want to print a series of virtual
journals that contain the best works in given fields, and send them (by
subscription) to scientists in that field. I think a lot of people would
greatly value such a service, but it is not possible under narrow
free-access.
>
> (3) NO NEED OR RIGHT TO RE-PUBLISH: There is no need or justification
> for demanding the further right to re-publish a full-text in further
> *print-on-paper* publications ("derivative works") when it is already
> ubiquitously accessible toll-free. That was never part of the rationale
> or justification for demanding free/open access in the first place. What
> ushered in the open-access era was the newfound possibility of providing
> all would-be users with free, ubiquitous *online* access to texts,
> thereby maximizing their research impact. This newfound possibility,
> created by the Web, had nothing whatsoever to do with the right to
> re-publish those texts on paper!
>
This may never have been your rational for demanding FREE access, but it was
a key part of my and many other users demands for OPEN access. My reason for
getting into this in the first place was my desire to better link
experimental data (in my case genome sequence and experimental genomics
data) with the primary literature. I wanted to build a database that would
hold our experimental data along with a large collection of relevant papers
that would be marked up in a unique way that allowed for integrated browsing
of the data and literature. The only practical way to do this is to have
local copies of the papers in our database, something that is needlessly
precluded by strict free-access.
> (4) OPEN ACCESS PROVISION IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING:
> It may be that (some) open-access journals do not need or want to
> have exclusive publication or republication rights. But open-access
> journal-publication is not the only form of open-access provision.
> Author/institution self-archiving of one's own toll-access journal
> articles is another way to provide open access, and a much more
> immediate and powerful way than to wait for toll-access journals
> to become open-access journals.
Yes, it is true that open access publishing is not the only path to open
access. However, it is also true that self-archiving does not provide open
access - it provides free access. While self-archiving may be more
immediate, unless it ultimately leads to open access it is not more
powerful.
>
> (5) DEMANDING REPUBLICATION RIGHTS WOULD NEEDLESSLY CONSTRAIN AND
> DELAY OPEN-ACCESS PROVISION VIA SELF-ARCHIVING: To try to impose
> the open-access journal's republication policy on the definition of
> what counts as open access itself would be to impose an arbitrary and
> unnecessary constraint on the second (and larger) of the two means of
> providing open access. It is one thing to ask toll-access publishers to
> support author/institution self-archiving, so as to maximize the impact
> (usage, application, citation) of a text by maximizing access to it
> online; it is quite another thing to demand that toll-access publishers
> agree to put anyone and everyone on a par with themselves, in having the
> right to publish that text in print. That would only serve to provoke
> (justifiable) toll-access publisher opposition to self-archiving --
> and hence to open-access provision by that means.
Now this is a completely different point. First, there seems to be
conflation of open access and free access here again. While it is possible
to provide open access by self-archiving, without the redistribution rights
it is only free access. This is not an imposition of the "redistribution
policy" (sic - this is an oversimplication - it is really about
redistribution and, more importantly, reuse).
It seems like what you are really saying is that open access is the enemy of
free access, because toll-access publishers would allow free-access through
self-archiving, but are unwilling to go to real open access, and that
demanding open access delays the implementation of free access. I understand
your argument, but I think you are wrong. I believe that the it is an
illusion to imagine that it is possible to have universal free access
through self-archiving AND to support journals through subscriptions.
Self-archiving is, almost by definition, parasitic (and I say that in a good
way!). And, like most parasites, the host has to be healthy for it to
survive. If we imagine that all works are suddenly self-archived, who is
going to subscribe to journals? I just don't see how self-archiving can
provide universal free access without killing off toll-access journals in
the process (do you really think selling print subscriptions will sustain
them?). I feel that living under and promulgating the illusion that
self-archiving and toll-access journals are mutually compatible does not
hasten universal access, it delays it because it delays us facing up to the
reality that we need a new economic model for scientific publishing.
>
> (6) SELF-ARCHIVED FULL-TEXTS CAN BE COMPUTATIONALLY DATA-MINED: Research
> articles are not themselves research data (though they may contain
> some research data), but they can be treated as computational data if
> they are accessible toll-free online. Again, there is no need for any
> further rights or computational capabilities to do be able to do this:
> The full-text need merely be immediately, permanently, and ubiquitously
> (i.e., webwide) accessible toll-free, so any user anywhere, any time,
> can read the full-text on-screen, download it, store it, print it off,
> search/grep it, computationally process it, etc.
While there is a lot that can/could be done with self-archived free-access
works, the inability to serve up cached, or more importantly, digested and
reprocessed versions of works greatly and needlessly limits the types of
computational analysis and data-mining that can be done on the literature.
If all you want to do is search, then self-archiving is ok (although still
subotimal), but for any more sophisticated analyses it is not.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
> ~On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Michael Eisen wrote:
>
> >sh> Perhaps all Sally means here is that she thinks it would be more
useful
> >sh> if open-access ("gold") journals did not use the creative-commons
> >sh> license, and instead, apart from providing immediate, permanent,
> >sh> toll-free, non-gerrymandered, online access to the full-text, the
journal
> >sh> required *exclusive* copyright transfer for its sale in derivative
works.
> > >
> >sh> I'd say: No harm in that; go ahead! There was never any need for the
> >sh> creative-commons license here anyway! Open-access provision was all
that was
> >sh> needed -- whether via the golden road or the green one.
> > >
> >sh> (But again, what market is there likely to be for derivative works
when the
> >sh> full-text is forever freely available online?)
> >
> > I couldn't disagree more. You are redefining open access to be no more
than
> > free access. For many of us involved in open access the ability to reuse
and
> > republish text is a critical part of making optimal use of the
scientific
> > literature. PLoS chose the creative commons license in order to
encourage
> > creative reuse of the content we publish.
>
> Mike,
>
> In this discussion thread
>
> "Free Access Vs. Open Access"
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html
>
> I have several times laid out in some detail the reasons I believe the
> distinction between "free access" and "open access" is not only vacuous,
> but is now even becoming an obstacle to the understanding and growth of
> free/open access itself.
>
> I will again summarize the points, but please, by way of reply, do not
> just reinvoke the distinction, as if it were valid and unchallenged,
> but rather defend it against the 6 points I make, if it can be defended.
>
> I hasten to add that it is not a defence to say that the free/open
> distinction is enshrined in the wording of the Budapest Open Access
> Initiative that we both had a hand in drafting and that we both signed:
> I considered the distinction just as empty then as I do now, but then I
> thought it was harmless, like adding "for the candidate of your choice" to
> the demand for voting rights. I would never have thought that anyone would
> call it not "true" voting rights or less than "full" voting rights if
> you got to vote, but the candidate of your choice was not on the ballot!
>
> Here is the BOAI definition:
>
> What does BOAI mean by "open access"?
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess
>
> "By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its 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,
> or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal,
> or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining
> access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction
> and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain,
> should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work
> and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited."
>
> So here is my list, again:
>
> (1) UBIQUITOUS DIRECT ONLINE ACCESS MAKES DERIVATIVE ACCESS SUPERFLUOUS:
> Once the full-text is immediately, permanently, and ubiquitously
> (i.e., webwide) accessible toll-free, so any user anywhere, any time,
> can read the full-text on-screen, download it, store it, print it off,
> search/grep it, computationally process it, etc. -- which any user can
> do if the author self-archives it -- the further rights and uses that
> distinguish "free" from "open" become either moot or supererogatory:
>
> (2) NO EXTRA DOWNLOAD/PRINT RIGHTS NEEDED, OR NEED BE SPECIFIED: Users
> don't need a further specified right to download, store, process or
> print off any of the other material that they can download, store and
> print off from the web -- as long as the material is itself not pirated
> by another consumer, but provided by its own author, as is the case with
> one's own self-archived journal articles.
>
> (3) NO NEED OR RIGHT TO RE-PUBLISH: There is no need or justification
> for demanding the further right to re-publish a full-text in further
> *print-on-paper* publications ("derivative works") when it is already
> ubiquitously accessible toll-free. That was never part of the rationale
> or justification for demanding free/open access in the first place. What
> ushered in the open-access era was the newfound possibility of providing
> all would-be users with free, ubiquitous *online* access to texts,
> thereby maximizing their research impact. This newfound possibility,
> created by the Web, had nothing whatsoever to do with the right to
> re-publish those texts on paper!
>
> (4) OPEN ACCESS PROVISION IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING:
> It may be that (some) open-access journals do not need or want to
> have exclusive publication or republication rights. But open-access
> journal-publication is not the only form of open-access provision.
> Author/institution self-archiving of one's own toll-access journal
> articles is another way to provide open access, and a much more
> immediate and powerful way than to wait for toll-access journals
> to become open-access journals.
>
> (5) DEMANDING REPUBLICATION RIGHTS WOULD NEEDLESSLY CONSTRAIN AND
> DELAY OPEN-ACCESS PROVISION VIA SELF-ARCHIVING: To try to impose
> the open-access journal's republication policy on the definition of
> what counts as open access itself would be to impose an arbitrary and
> unnecessary constraint on the second (and larger) of the two means of
> providing open access. It is one thing to ask toll-access publishers to
> support author/institution self-archiving, so as to maximize the impact
> (usage, application, citation) of a text by maximizing access to it
> online; it is quite another thing to demand that toll-access publishers
> agree to put anyone and everyone on a par with themselves, in having the
> right to publish that text in print. That would only serve to provoke
> (justifiable) toll-access publisher opposition to self-archiving --
> and hence to open-access provision by that means.
>
> (6) SELF-ARCHIVED FULL-TEXTS CAN BE COMPUTATIONALLY DATA-MINED: Research
> articles are not themselves research data (though they may contain
> some research data), but they can be treated as computational data if
> they are accessible toll-free online. Again, there is no need for any
> further rights or computational capabilities to do be able to do this:
> The full-text need merely be immediately, permanently, and ubiquitously
> (i.e., webwide) accessible toll-free, so any user anywhere, any time,
> can read the full-text on-screen, download it, store it, print it off,
> search/grep it, computationally process it, etc.
>
> > You may not see the value in allowing redistribution, derivative works
and
> > other forms of reuse, but you have to recognize that others do and that
this
> > is an central part of the definition of open access.
>
> Please specify concretely those features of redistribution and derivative
> works and other forms of reuse that are not already covered by having the
> full-text accessible toll-free to everyone webwide at all times. You want
> to read or process it? Go to the URL and download it. You want to quote
> it in your own work? Quote reasonable-sized chunks according to fair use,
> and otherwise simply insert the URL and specify the passages. You want
> to data-crunch it? Go ahead, You want to print it out for your own use,
> or your lab's? Go ahead. You want to redistribute it to a large number
> of people? Send them the URL. You must, for some reason, republish and
> redistribute it as print on paper? Ask the publisher's and/or author's
> permission, because nothing has changed in this regard! What the online
> era has made possible is open *online* access. Other distribution media
> are not covered; that is not what has changed. (But, looked at more
> reflectively, most of the would-be uses in the other media are covered
> by the uses that ubiquitous online access afford.)
>
> So, no, I definitely do *not* recognise that "allowing redistribution,
> derivative works and other forms of reuse [that are not already inherent
> in permanent, ubiquitous toll-free full-text online access]... [are a]
> central part of the definition of open access." And I think it would
> constitute a *monumental* historical mistake to deny or delay access
> to the substantial and reachable benefits of open access through
> self-archiving by denying that it meets the definition of "open access"!
>
> > And you shouldn't be encouraging this kind of confusion of open access
> > and free access. If all you care about is free access, then lobby for
that,
> > but don't dilute the meaning of open access.
>
> I am "lobbying" for the exactly the same thing I have lobbying for
> for at least a decade: Toll-free online access to the full-texts of the
> annual 2,500,000 articles in the world's 24,000 peer-reviewed journals.
> http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/
> The BOAI and its "definition" came late in the day, and only after --
> and as a consequence of -- a good deal of footwork that had already been
> done on behalf of the capability which was baptised by the BOAI with a
> name. But the BOAI definition has not quite reached the status of
> constitution or holy writ, and I'll warrant that most users of the term
> "open access" have no idea of the wording used by the BOAI.
>
> And wording -- if it has not been etched in stone -- is there to be
> amended, if it steers us false. And I for one am inclined to draw the
> increasingly obvious conclusion that the open/free distinction is steering
> us false, and hence that the BOAI definition (if it really sustains such
> a distinction -- I'm not even sure it does!) needs to be updated.
>
> Unless you have a substantive reply to points (1) - (6) above?
>
> Cheers,
> Stevan
>
> NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
> access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
> the American Scientist Open Access Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
> Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
>
> Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
> BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
> journal whenever one exists.
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
> BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
> toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
> http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
> http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
> http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
>
Received on Tue Dec 30 2003 - 22:07:48 GMT