I'll try to answer these questions as concisely as I can; I'd hate to
drive anyone off the list. Though I can't resist pointing out that
Stevan's comments in that regard are ironic, given the length and
repetitiveness of his response, his own choice to re-post the entirety
of a message to which I had deliberately only linked in order to avoid
repetition, and what had been his stated intention to stop and let me
have the last word. Not that I'm insisting on having the last word --
in fact, I'll demonstrate that by making this my last posting. Whatever
Stevan says in response to this message can be the end of our public
exchange on this topic.
Now, I'm confused. This was Stevan this morning:
> For a preview of reality with 100% self-archiving, see OAIster or
> citebase.
... and this is Stevan this afternoon:
> (1) How is looking for these articles in OAIster or citebase a preview
> of the reality of 100% self-archiving?
I can't think of anything to say here, because there's nothing logical
to respond to.
> (2) JEC is a green journal (i.e., it give its authors the
> green light to
> self-archive). But obviously the journal's green light isn't enough,
> since 93% of journals are green but only 15% of articles are being
> self-archived. (That's why a self-archiving mandate like the
> one proposed
> by RCUK and Berlin 3 is needed.)
That will work fine where the mandate applies and where authors comply.
As not all research is conducted using government money and not all
authors are likely to be equally scrupulous in conforming to
self-archiving requirements, it's hard to see how even a government
mandate can be counted on to give the desired result (i.e., a "total
solution").
> (3) Four out of the six articles in JEC September 2004 were
> on the web.
> That's 67%, much better than the 15% average. But the 15% estimate
> is based on what google *does* find today (and there the 2/6 Rick
> found with google comes closer to the average).
Actually, I found 4/6 using Google. I found 2/6 using OAIster, and 0/6
using citebase.
> (4) Self-archiving mandates require self-archiving in an OAI-compliant
> Institutional (or Central) Repository (Archive) -- not just on an
> arbitrary website. All OAI-compliant archives will be harvested by
> OAIster (and probably also google scholar).
>
> (5) For 100% OA self-archiving, read "100% OA self-archiving in OAI
> IRs or CRs." (OAI-compliance was already part of the 2001 BOAI
> definition of OA!)
But I think this brings us back to my original point, Stevan, which is
that you are not the Official Definer of OA. Even the Budapest language
is only one of several competing definitions. Yes, if the whole world
defined OA exactly the same way you do, and if everyone complied with
its requirements, then OA would mean "universally and easily
accessible." But that reduces a complex set of real-world problems to
the level of tautology. The problem is that in the real world,
definitions of OA vary. To accuse those who see problems with OA of
just "failing to grasp" the issues is to ignore the fact that one of the
primary issues is the definition of OA.
OK, I'm done. Really. Have at me, Stevan, and then we'll call it a
day.
----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand_at_unr.edu
Received on Fri Dec 16 2005 - 23:23:14 GMT