Re: Value-Neutral Names Needed for the Two Forms of OA

From: Bernard Rentier <brentier_at_ULG.AC.BE>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 07:16:50 +0200

    [ The following text is in the "UTF-8" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

I vote for BASIC & FULL. 

Cheers,
Bernard

Le 03-mai-08 à 05:07, Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> a
écrit :


    The Two Forms of OA Have Been Defined: They Now Need
    Value-Neutral Names



      SUMMARY: Our joint statement with Peter Suber noted
      that both price-barrier-free access and
      permission-barrier-free access are indeed forms of
      Open Access (OA) and that virtually all Green OA
      and much of Gold OA today is just
      price-barrier-free OA, although we both agree that
      permission-barrier-free OA is the ultimate
      desideratum. What we had not anticipated was that
      if price-barrier-free OA were actually named by its
      logical condition as "Weak OA" (i.e., the necessary
      condition for permission-barrier-free OA) then that
      would create difficulties for those who are working
      hard toward the universal adoption of the mandates
      to provide price-barrier-free OA (Green OA
      self-archiving mandates) that are only now
      beginning to grow and flourish. So we are looking
      for a shorthand or stand-in for "price-barrier-free
      OA" and "permission-barrier-free OA" that will
      convey the distinction without any pejorative
      connotations for either form of OA. The two forms
      of OA stand defined, explicitly and logically. They
      are now in need of value-neutral names (e.g., BASIC
      vs. FULL OA).



"Weak/Strong" marks the logical distinction between two forms
of OA: price-barrier-free access is anecessary condition for
permission-barrier-free access, and permission-barrier-free
access is a sufficient condition for price-barrier-free access.
That is the logic of weak vs. strong conditions.

But since Peter Suber and I posted the distinction, noting
that both price-barrier-free access and permission-barrier-free
access are indeed Open Access (OA), many of our colleagues have
been contacting us to express serious concern about the
unintended pejorative connotations of "weak." 

As a consequence, to avoid this unanticipated and inadvertent
bias, the two types of OA cannot be named by the logical
conditions (weak and strong) that define them. We soon hope to
announce a more transparent, unbiased pair of names. Current
candidates include:
      Transparent, self-explanatory descriptors:
            USE OA vs. RE-USE OA
            READ OA vs. READ-WRITE OA
            PRICE OA vs. PERMISSION OA

      Generic descriptors:
            BASIC or GENERIC or CORE OA vs.
            EXTENDED or EXTENSIBLE or FULL OA
            SOFT OA vs. HARD OA
            EASY OA vs. HARD OA

(My own sense it that the consensus is tending toward BASIC vs.
FULL OA.)

The ultimate choice of names matters far less than ensuring
that the unintended connotations of "weak" cannot be exploited
by the opponents of OA, or by the partisans of one of the forms
of OA to the detriment of the other. Nor should mandating "weak
OA" be discouraged by the misapprehension that it is some sort
of sign of weakness, or of a deficient desideratum

The purpose of our joint statement with Peter Suber had been to
make explicit what is already true de facto, which is that both
price-barrier-free access and permission-barrier-free access
are indeed forms of Open Access (OA), and referred to as such,
and that virtually all Green OA today, and much of Gold OA
today, is just price-barrier-free OA, not
permission-barrier-free OA, although we both agree that
permission-barrier-free OA is the ultimate desideratum.

But what Peter Suber and I had not anticipated was that if
price-barrier-free OA were actually named by its logical
condition as "Weak OA" (i.e., the necessary condition for
permission-barrier-free OA) then that would create difficulties
for those who are working hard toward the universal adoption of
the mandates to provide price-barrier-free OA (Green OA
self-archiving mandates) that are only now beginning to grow
and flourish.

In particular, Professor Bernard Rentier, the Rector of the
University of Liege (which has adopted a Green OA
self-archiving mandate to provide price-barrier-free OA) is
also the founder of EurOpenScholar, which is dedicated to
promoting the adoption of Green OA mandates in the universities
of Europe and worldwide. Professor Rentier advised us quite
explicitly that if price-boundary-free OA were called "Weak
OA," it would make it much harder to persuade other rectors to
adopt Green OA mandates -- purely because of the negative
connotations of "weak."

Nor is the solution to try instead to promote
permission-barrier-free ("Strong OA") mandates, for the
obstacles and resistance to that are far, far greater. We are
all agreed that it is not realistic to expect consensus from
either authors, university administrators or funders on the
adoption of, or compliance with, mandates to provide
permission-barrier-free OA at this time, and that the growth of
price-barrier-free OA should on no account be slowed by or
subordinated to efforts to promote permission-barrier-free OA
(though all of us are in favour of permission-barrier-free OA
too).

So, as the label "weak" would be a handicap, we need another
label. The solution is not to spell it out longhand every time
either, as "price-barrier-free OA," etc. That would be as
awkward as it would be absurd.

So we are looking for a short-hand or stand-in for
"price-barrier-free OA" and "permission-barrier-free OA" that
will convey the distinction without any pejorative connotations
for either form of OA. The two forms of OA stand defined,
explicitly and logically. They are now in need of value-neutral
names.

Suggested names are welcome -- but not if they have negative
connotations for either form of OA. Nor is it an option to
re-appropriate the label "OA" for only one of the two forms of
OA.

Stevan Harnad
Received on Sat May 03 2008 - 12:03:43 BST