Re: How to Counter All Opposition to the FRPAA Self-Archiving Mandate

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:55:29 +0100 (BST)

David has completely misunderstood the immediate deposit. Metadata *and*
full-text must be deposited immediately. The embargo can apply only to
access-setting, not full-text deposit.

Please read attentively, and reflect a little, before opining.

Stevan

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, David Goodman wrote:

>
> Stevan is correct that his ideas in this post will
> end the opposition of the society publishers. Why should they oppose
> him? He now agrees with their
> basic position. Like them, he sees no need for immediate open access:
>
> >But the part we must keep clearly in mind is that an *immediate-deposit
> >mandate is enough*! There is no need to over-reach (and to either hold
> >out for an immediate-OA mandate
>
> He accepts the deposit of metadata alone. In that sense there is no need
> for any legislatio, any compulsion. In biomedicine, Pubmed already
> provides rapid high-quality searchable metadata--and usually abstracts
> as well--for close to 100% of the mainstream articles, all at no direct
> expense to reader, author, or publisher.
> (For the other sciences , Google Scholar will probably reach
> that point in a few months, with the full cooperation of most
> publishers.)
>
> Stevan thinks open metadata will lead authors
> to open access; there has been free access to metadata for many years, and
> it hasn't led more than a fraction of the biomedical authors to OA.
>
> He thinks reprint request e-mails sufficient. This is similar to those who
> think ILL sufficient--eventually, many of those who ask will get some of
> what they need. (This is the level of access we had in the 60's:
> journals to
> subscribers in major universities, and reprints to as many individuals
> as the author could afford. Current Contents served well as the very low
> cost source of metadata. Potential readers outside the academic world
> knew enough not to even try for access.)
>
> My friends in publishing should not prematurely rejoice. Stevan may have
> adopted their views, but he is not likely to convince anyone else.
>
> My friends in the OA movement should not fear; we are better off without
> such a gullible leader.
>
> Dr. David Goodman
> Associate Professor
> Palmer School of Library and Information Science
> Long Island University
> and formerly
> Princeton University Library
>
> dgoodman_at_liu.edu
> dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Date: Sunday, June 11, 2006 10:19 pm
> Subject: [SOAF] How to Counter All Opposition to the FRPAA Self-Archiving
> Mandate
> To: SPARC Open Access Forum <SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org>
>
> >
> >
> > The AAP (and PPS and FASEB and STM) objections to the FRPAA
> > proposal to
> > mandate OA self-archiving (as well as its counterpart proposals in
> > Europe, the UK, Australia and elsewhere worldwide) are all completely
> > predictable, have been aired many times before, and are empirically
> > as well as logically so weak and flawed as to be decisively refutable.
> > [...]
>
>
> ==========
>
> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> The SPARC Open Access Forum.
> To post, send your message to <SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org>.
> To unsubscribe, email to <SPARC-OAForum-off_at_arl.org>.
> To switch to digest mode, email to <SPARC-OAForum-digest_at_arl.org>.
> To switch to index mode, email to <SPARC-OAForum-index_at_arl.org>.
> Send administrative queries to <SPARC-OAForum-request_at_arl.org>.
>
Received on Wed Jun 14 2006 - 05:06:43 BST