All,
The argument made by Stevan Harnad in the post below is marred by the
repeated assertion that "all authors want OA1" (his term, i.e. what
we have hitherto been asked to call Green OA self-archiving). The
experience of a repository manager quickly shows that many academics
do not want it, largely because they are afraid of what it may entail
and very badly informed about the benefits to themselves and to their
disciplines. In fact, when it is asserted that "all authors" want
Green OA, in fact all that seems to be true is that all respondents
to the studies cited in fact want it. I have encountered whole
departments that contained maybe only one member of staff who was
favourable towards OA and otherwise showed ignorance of the issues.
This is not their fault but ours for failing to accompany efforts
towards mandates with the appropriate grass-roots advocacy. These
mandates are necessary, I agree (as stated in the past).
I wonder if Stevan can substantiate the comment that "all authors
want OA1" that I see repeated here, and reconcile that opinion to the
statement that I have made about my own practical experience as a
repository manager that it isn't in fact the case across all
disciplines. I find it impossible to believe that my university is so
exceptional! I might add that these are largely arts departments, at
whom OA advocacy has never been primarily targeted. Quite rightly,
they feel that they have been treated as an add-on to the needs of
science disciplines in evolving new forms of academic publishing.
This has been directly stated in print by a member of our English
department (their English Association newsletter) - sadly and
ironically I don't think an online version exists for me to give you
the link. It makes a rather interesting, albeit local, case study.
But perhaps Stevan will argue that this is just one unrepresentative
case. If so, the lady doth protest too much.
I'm sorry, by no means would I mean to wreck the party. Nonetheless,
my above point entirely vitiates the article. In simple terms that I
feel can be useful to those actually engaged in advancing Green OA, I
feel that both parties in this argument correctly support different
forms of OA, that advancing the cause of one in no way need undermine
the other (these fears are a phantom and a paranoia in my view) and
that very little of the debate below is of practical use in putting
OA into practice. In fact, it took me a long time to read and digest
while I could have been engaging in targeted advocacy aimed at
departments and management in achieving both voluntary archiving in
the meantime and mandates as soon as possible. If a post contains
misinformation, as I submit above, how are we repository managers to
make sense of the argument and make any use of it? I am certainly
perplexed, as primed by Stevan's most recent post.
Best regards,
Talat
-----
Dr Talat Chaudhri, Ymgynghorydd Cadwrfa / Repository Advisor
Tîm Cynorthwywyr Pwnc ac E-Lyfrgell / Subject Support and E-Library
Team
Gwasanaethau Gwybodaeth / Information Services
Prifysgol Aberystwyth / Aberystwyth University
Llyfrgell Hugh Owen Library, Penglais, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion. SY23
3DZ
E-bost / E-mail: tac_at_aber.ac.uk
Ffôn / Tel (Hugh Owen): (62)2396
Ffôn / Tel (Llandinam): (62)8724
Ffacs / Fax: (01970) (62)2404
CADAIR:
http://cadair.aber.ac.uk
Cadwrfa ymchwil ar-lein Prifysgol Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth University's online research repository
Ymholiadau / Enquiries: cadair_at_aber.ac.uk
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 26 May 2008 01:57
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: OA Primer for the Perplexed
OA Primer for the Perplexed
SUMMARY: OA1 is Free Access and OA2 is Licensed Re-Use.
Green OA self-archiving by authors,mandated by their
universities or funders, can in principle provide OA1 or
OA2, for either articles or data or both. However, it
would be difficult, resisted by many authors, and
probably unjust for universities to mandate Green OA1 for
data or to mandate Green OA2 for either articles or data.
(Funders are in a position to mandate more.)
Researchers may not want to make their data either
freely accessible/useable or re-usable, and they may not
want to make their articles freely re-useable. However,
all researchers, without exception, want their articles
freely accessible/usable (OA1).
This is the reason Green OA1 mandates are the highest
priority. Authors all want Green OA1 and they report that
they will comply, willingly (see Swan studies) and
actually do comply (see Sale studies) with Green OA1
mandates from their universities and funders to
self-archive their articles.
Moreover, OA1 for articles prepares the way and is
likely to lead to OA1 and OA2 for data, as well as to
some OA2 for articles.
That is why Green OA1 self-archiving and Green OA1
self-archiving mandates should be assigned priority.
Peter Murray-Rust, who is concerned exclusively with
OA2 (re-useability) for both articles and
data, persistently misunderstands much of this.
____________________________________________________________________________
Peter Murray-Rust continues to misunderstand, and hence misrepresent
OA. The picture is a lot simpler than Peter Murray-Rust makes it
sound. Here's a simple glossary:
1. Research Data vs. Research Articles:
Data: Research generates raw data.
Articles: Research generates journal articles describing,
analyzing and interpreting the raw data.
Data in Articles: Sometimes articles don't just describe
but actually contain raw data.
Articles as Data: Sometimes the articles themselves are
treated as data.
2. OA1 (Free Access) vs OA2 (Free Re-Use):
OA1: Articles made accessible/useable free online for
users who do not have subscription access to the journal
in which they are published.
OA2: Articles or data made accessible/useable free online
with various kinds of re-use licenses.
(There is only one OA1 but there are several degrees of OA2,
depending on which re-uses are licensed.)
3. The Green vs. Gold Roads to OA:
Green OA: Authors make their articles and/or their data
OA1 or OA2 by self-archiving them online.
Gold OA: Journals make their articles OA1 or OA2.
Green OA self-archiving by authors, mandated by their universities or
funders, can in principle provide OA1 or OA2, for either articles or
data or both. However, it would be difficult, resisted by many
authors, and probably unjust for universities to mandate Green OA1
for data or to mandate Green OA2 for either articles or data.
(Funders are in a position to mandate more.)
Researchers may not want to make their data either freely
accessible/useable or re-usable, and they may not want to make their
articles freely re-useable. However, all researchers, without
exception, want their articles freely accessible/usable (OA1).
This is the reason Green OA1 mandates are the highest priority.
Authors all want Green OA1 and they report that they will comply,
willingly (see Swan studies) and actually do comply (see Sale
studies) with Green OA1 mandates from their universities and funders
to self-archive their articles.
Moreover, OA1 for articles prepares the way and is likely to lead to
OA1 and OA2 for data, as well as to some OA2 for articles.
That is why Green OA1 self-archiving and Green OA1 self-archiving
mandates should be assigned priority.
Peter Murray-Rust, who is concerned exclusively with OA2
(re-useability) for both articles and data, persistently
misunderstands much of this, especially the practical causal path and
its attendant priorities.
Here are the kinds of misunderstandings that keep recurring in
Peter's discussion of Green OA1 [translations are provided in
brackets]:
PMR: "Green Open Access [OA1 to articles] is irrelevant to Open Data
[OA1 or OA2 to data] (I think it makes it harder, others disagree)."
No, OA1 to articles is not irrelevant, either to OA1 to articles or
data, or to OA2 (licensed re-use rights) to articles and data. Nor
does OA1 make it harder to achieve OA2 (for articles or data). But it
would certainly make it harder to achieve Green OA1 for articles
through Green OA1 mandates if we tried pre-emptively to insist on OA2
instead, or first.
PMR: "There is no explicit mention in the GreenOA upload model [Green
OA1 to articles] for items other than the "full-text" [data]."
There is no "GreenOA upload model" but there is Green OA1
self-archiving of articles, and Green OA1 mandates to self-archive
articles. Data and OA2 can certainly be mentioned in these mandates,
but they cannot be mandated (because not all authors wish to provide
OA1 to their data, or OA2 to their articles or data, whereas all
authors wish to provide OA1 to their articles (even it needs to be
mandated to get them to actually do it!).
PMR: "The primary goal of Stevan Harnad - expressed frequently to me
and others - is that we should strive for 100% GOA [mandated Green
OA1 to articles]compliance and that discussions on Open Data,
licences and other matters [OA2 to articles, OA1 or OA2 to data] are
a distraction and are harmful to the GOA process."
What is distracting and harmful for getting consensus and compliance
on Green OA1 mandates, hence for getting OA1 to articles, is not
the discussion of OA2 or of data, but the suggestion that it is not
enough to mandate OA1 to articles. The time to insist on more than
Green OA1 mandates is when Green OA1 is already faithfully mandated
and provided, not before Green OA1 mandates have prevailed.
PMR: "if Open Data [OA2 to data] is irrelevant or inimical to GOA
[OA1 to articles] then it is hard to see GOA [OA1 to articles] as
supportive of Open Data [OA2 to data]."
Pre-emptive insistence on OA2 to data (or articles) is inimical to
achieving consensus and compliance on mandating OA1 to articles.
Achieving OA1 to articles will certainly facilitate going on to
achieve OA1 and OA2 to data as well as achieving some OA2 to
articles.
PMR: "my main argument is that lack of support for Open Data in GOA
[OA2 to data and articles] is potentially harmful to the Open Data
movement [OA2 to data and articles]. Let's assume that Stevan's
approach succeeds and we get 100% of papers in repositories through
University mandates, funders et. al... [This] GOA [mandates OA1 to
articles] will encourage the deposition of full-text only [articles,
not data]"
Green OA1 mandates can encourage OA1 to data and OA1 and OA2 to both
articles and data, but they cannot mandatethem, because all authors
want OA1 for their articles but not all authors want OA1 for their
data or OA2 for their articles and data. And pre-emptively insisting
on more will only result in getting less (i.e., less consensus and
compliance on OA1 for articles).
PMR: "So my major concern is that GreenOA [OA1 to articles] will lead
to substandard processes for publishing scientific data. I'd be happy
to find Repositories that insist on data upload [OA1 to data]."
I would be happy if we had 100% OA1 and OA2 to both articles and
data, but I know of no realistic way to achieve that, and certainly
not directly, because it is not the case that 100% of authors want it
already, in principle. But 100% of authors do want OA1 to their
articles already, in principle, and they can and do provide that OA1
it in practice if it is mandated.
I find it hard to imagine that the universal practice of providing
OA1 to articles can fail to strengthen the inclination to provide OA1
and OA2 to data and articles as well. On the other hand, it is easy
to see how insisting pre-emptively on the latter could prevent even
the former from coming into universal practice.
PMR: "a GreenOA paper [OA1] may often be a cut-down, impoverished,
version of what is available - for a price - on the publishers
website. It may, and usually will, lack the supporting information
(supplemental data). It will probably not reproduce any permissions
that the publisher actually allows. So - if we concern ourselves with
matters other than human eyeballs and fulltext - it is almost
certainly a poorer resource than the one on the publisher site."
This point is truly perplexing. What is available on a (non-OA)
publisher's website is not even OA1, so what is the point of talking
about its impoverishment to those would-be users who are not rich
enough to afford the publisher's version?
And, yes, OA1 (free online access/use) is not OA2 (free online
access/use and re-use licenses, to either article or data), because
not all authors wish to provide OA2 to their articles or data, and
Green OA1 mandates hence do not attempt to mandate it.
However, data too can certainly be self-archived in Institutional
Repositories (IRs) if the author wishes, and IRs have the metadata
tags for specifying re-use rights (OA2), if any, for all deposited
articles and data.
PMR: "Many funders... require ultra-strong-OA for their archival...
[OA2 to articles and data] And several [Gold OA2] publishers... also
insist on CC-BY [OA2 to articles]. This is, of course, great for
scientific data [OA2 to data]. But it's a long way from GreenOA [OA1
to articles]."
Yes, some funders can and do mandate more than OA1 to articles. He
who pays the piper calls the tune -- so funders are in a better
position to do this than universities are (and funders do not need
authors' consensus or consent, as universities do). But so far that
funder OA2 applies only to articles (and usually only after an
embargo period), not to data (although funders could in principle
mandate data self-archiving too, and eventually will, I hope).
What Gold OA publishers provide is another matter; the OA1 problem is
the problem of the 90% of journals that are non-OA, not the 10% that
are OA. (Moreover, most Gold OA journals, too, provide only OA1, as
Peter Suber has pointed out, not OA2.)
PMR: "Even if the IRs contained all the data appropriate to the
publications how do we discover it?"
If authors self-archive their data, the IRs allow them both to link
the data with the corresponding articles and to specify the re-uses
licensed.
PMR: "GreenOA [OA1] is designed to be simple. Stevan Harnad argues
that it can be accomplished with 'one-click'."
No, it is not OA1 self-archiving that is one-click, it is almost-OA
via the "Fair Use" Button -- for deposits that are not Open Access
(OA1) Closed Access.
The deposit of the full-text itself takes under six minutes' worth of
keystrokes, as described in
Carr, L., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) A Longitudinal Study of the
Practice of Self-Archiving.
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Received on Tue May 27 2008 - 12:43:23 BST