This is an online reply to Peter Murray-Rust, followed by an online exchange,
added with permission.
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, peter murray-rust wrote:
> Corollaries:
> 1. It is an irrelevance or nonsense to talk of OA journals.
OA Journals (Gold) are of course relevant to OA and the growth of OA (and
perhaps eventually to the future of journal publishing). But for now, they
have far less potential for immediate OA growth than OA self-archiving
(Green) does.
The definition of OA is simple and functional (free for all online),
and hence so is the definition of an OA journal-article. The definition
of an OA journal, in contrast, is somewhat arbitrary. If it were put to
a vote, I would vote that an OA journal should be defined as a journal
all of whose articles are made into OA journal-articles by the journal
itself. I am sure Peter would vote for this too. But alas there is no
consensus on this.
> 2. Whatever contractual conditions are attached to an "OA article"
> are meaningless or irrelevant, or overridden by the fact of the
> article having been posted openly (which has achieved by being OA)..
Yes; once an *author* makes his own journal article OA by self-archiving it,
that trumps all other contractual conditions, insofar as OA is concerned:
The *user* has free online access to the full-text, along with all
the other capabilities that come with that online territory. But that
excludes offline capabilities, such as re-publishing and distributing it
on paper, and even online mass-re-use capabilities, such as incorporating
the contents (rather than links) in a commercial (or noncommercial)
database without permission.
Before self-archiving, however, some *authors* may feel contractually
constrained about making their own journal articles OA, if the journal has
not yet explicitly endorsed the practice of self-archiving (as 69% of
journals have already done for the postprint and a further 25% for the
preprint). For this 31% of articles/authors, the immediate solution
is to deposit the full-text of the postprint in their OAI-compliant
Institutional Repository immediately upon acceptance for publication,
exactly as the other 69% do, but to set access provisionally as Closed
Access (CA) rather than Open Access (OA). Only the metadata will then be
accessible webwide, but that will be sufficient to allow all individual
user-needs to be fulfilled with the help of the IR's EMAIL EPRINT button
(allowing users to request a single email copy semi-automatically via
the IR's web interface and email).
CA is definitely not OA, however, and does not provide what Peter
Murray-Rust needs in order to data-mine the full-texts via robot-trawlers
and data-crunchers! That will have to wait a bit for this subset of the
articles (31%), making do for now with the rest (69%). But once 100%
of authors are depositing immediately (as the mandates will ensure they
do), the day when the last 31% are made OA too will not be far off. (Just
let human nature, and the benefits of OA, take their natural course)...
Generic Rationale and Model for University Open Access Self-Archiving
Mandate: Immediate-Deposit/Optional Access (ID/OA)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
EPrints "Request eprint" button
http://www.eprints.org/news/features/request_button.php
> 3. The various declarations of OA are overly complex and should be
> replaced by the first SH sentence above and commonsense.
Yes!
> > SH:
> > "distractions that have been slowing our progress in reaching the
> > optimal and inevitable. (I have no theory of why we tarry so) "
>
> I apologize for the distraction - it came from an over-literal
> interpretation of the BOAI.
It is not at all a distraction to point out that the definition of
"OA Journal" is problematic. The risk of distraction came from the
implication that explicit robot-trawling licenses (or anything else) are a
prerequisite for making a journal-article OA (via author self-archiving),
rather than that they are merely a prerequisite for ensuring that all
OA journals make all of their articles robot-trawl-able.
(My guess, though, is that all OA journals [Gold] will also be Green
on author self-archiving; so the blanket remedy is that all authors
should self-archive all their articles, whether or not they happen to
be published in an OA journal!)
Here is a further offline exchange, reproduced with permission. Peter's
responses follow too. I have no further reply. I agree with Peter's summary.
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Leslie Carr wrote:
> > I believe that Peter's enquiry comes from the fact that he does a lot
> > of data-mining of chemistry journal articles, trying to pick up
> > references in the text to particular kinds of chemical. I think that
> > his concern is whether he is allowed to do this in any given "so-
> > called" OA Journal.
SH:
I could more or less infer that, but what I am trying to bring out is that
this is, in an important way, putting the shoe rather on the wrong foot:
The basic OA question is not whether a *journal* is OA (and hence
its contents can be harvested and data-mined) but whether an *article*
is OA (and hence its contents can be harvested and data-mined).
The definition of an OA journal is obviously rather arbitrary (though
we would all obviously prefer that it meant that 100% of its articles
are OA).
But in expressing his very valid and justified frustration with
self-styled "OA journals" not all of whose articles are in fact OA,
Peter inadvertently conflates (as many others inadvertently do) the
"definition" of OA with the definition of "OA Journal." Those are the
two things that have to be very explicitly disentangled.
Otherwise Peter, in his valuable and important efforts on behalf of the
data-mining of OA journal-article content, inadvertently joins the ranks
of those who think licensing certain rights is one of the preconditions
for making a journal-article OA: It is not, and if it were, it would
greatly retard the progress of OA (via self-archiving).
(I may be wrong that Peter is conflating journal-article data-mining with
empirical-data data-mining, but then he is conflating the requirements for
being an OA journal-article with the requirements for being an OA journal.)
> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 13:00:33 +0000
> From: peter murray-rust
>
> Thanks both,
>
> I am seriously trying to reach points of agreement.
>
> The following may be helpful:
> - I come from disciplines where formal definitions often relate to
> *procedures* rather than *principles*
> - there are very many people who take a roughly similar approach to
> me. That is a fact - perhaps regrettable - but it will help to acknowledge it.
> - I suspect that some scientific funding bodies may see OA as
> containing operational components (other than the process of free
> online indefinitely)
> - If we can clarify OA - its extent , its use - then we can help to
> define those principles and procedures which lie outside OA but
> which, for certain communities, are necessary. I have used the term
> "Open Data", which I separate from OA.
> - It is possible that in some cases the precise practice of OA leads
> to OD and that in some cases does not. This may not be a problem
> for OA (and if it is separated is not), but it is a problem for some
> of the disciplines.
>
> The BOAI reads partly like (or can be read by some as) a political or
> philosophical statement (e.g. a constitution) and partly as an
> operational procedure. This has been, I suspect, the root of confusion.
>
> > > LC:
> > > I believe that Peter's enquiry comes from the fact that he does a lot
> > > of data-mining of chemistry journal articles, trying to pick up
> > > references in the text to particular kinds of chemical. I think that
> > > his concern is whether he is allowed to do this in any given "so-
> > > called" OA Journal.
>
> Yes
>
> > SH:
> > I could more or less infer that, but what I am trying to bring out is that
> > this is, in an important way, putting the shoe rather on the wrong foot:
>
> I believe I now understand Stevan's position on this.
>
> > SH:
> > The basic OA question is not whether a *journal* is OA (and hence
> > its contents can be harvested and data-mined) but whether an *article*
> > is OA (and hence its contents can be harvested and data-mined).
> >
> > The definition of an OA journal is obviously rather arbitrary (though
> > we would all obviously prefer that it meant that 100% of its articles
> > are OA).
>
> An "OA journal" is an operational definition. It is easily (and
> perhaps mistakenly) taken to mean "all articles in this journal
> inherit (in the computer sense) the following principles...
> (statement of purpose and licenses).
>
> > SH:
> > But in expressing his very valid and justified frustration with
> > self-styled "OA journals" not all of whose articles are in fact OA,
> > Peter inadvertently conflates (as many others inadvertently do) the
> > "definition" of OA with the definition of "OA Journal." Those are the
> > two things that have to be very explicitly disentangled.
>
> I think the term "OA journal" conflates it, not me.
>
> >Otherwise Peter, in his valuable and important efforts on behalf of the
> >data-mining of OA journal-article content, inadvertently joins the ranks
> >of those who think licensing certain rights is one of the preconditions
> >for making a journal-article OA: It is not, and it it were, it would
> >greatly retard the progress of OA (via self-archiving).
>
> I now understand this. The BOAI and (if I am correct) my
> interpretation of SH's definitions are statements of principle, not
> practice. They rely on an (undefined) body of quasi-legislative
> practice for their operation. Stevan believes that no such body is
> required, unfortunately others do.
>
> > SH:
> > (I may be wrong that Peter is conflating journal-article data-mining with
> > empirical-data data-mining, but then he is conflating the requirements for
> > being an OA journal-article with the requirements for being an OA journal.)
>
> Not really. The journal concept is a convenience but not a necessity.
> I can mine single articles (which operation I take to depend on
> license, not openness of availability). The journal confers the
> following advantages:
> * a single statement by a journal can cover a very large number of articles
> * a number of bodies (e.g. DOAJ) can potentially help us to make
> decisions effectively and cheaply
> * (navigation) it is often convenient, though not necessary, to use
> the structure of a journal (or repository) to locate articles.
>
> If there is substantial agreement within the OA community on this
> issue then I have a clear idea of what phrases I can use and in what context.
>
> Please feel free to re-use anything here.
>
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Unilever Centre for Molecular Sciences Informatics
> University of Cambridge,
> Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
Received on Sat Dec 02 2006 - 15:33:11 GMT