On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Klaus Graf
<klausgraf_at_googlemail.com> wrote:
Rainer Kuhlen has posted in INETBIB a question regarding
Professor
Harnad's position to the aims of the German
"Urheberrechtsbündnis"
("improving copyright is slowing the OA movement"):
http://www.ub.uni-dortmund.de/listen/inetbib/msg37662.html
My position is that making copyright reform a precondition for OA is
slowing OA progress:
"Copyright Reform Should Not Be Made A Precondition For Mandating
Open Access"
PDF: berlin.pdf
1. It is a myth that green OA only works with a mandate.
Have a look at the NL "Cream of Science"!
The way to test how well Green OA works is the way Arthur Sale did
it: actually measure and compare the percentage of annual
institutional refereed research journal article output that is
deposited (1) when there is just an institutional repository (c. 15%)
versus (2) when there is an institutional repository plus deposit
assistance and incentives (c. 30%) versus (3) when there is a
repository, assistance/incentives plus a mandate (approaching 100%
within 2 years).
Leo Waaijers has confirmed that the percentage of Netherlands output
that was made OA with Cream of Science was about 25% at its best:
"it turns out that 2005 is the best year so far relative
to our national production. It is about 25%. For the
years 2006 and 2007 the current figures are roughly 20%
and 10% respectively. Of course, these figures will still
grow over time but it is unlikely that they will reach
the claimed 50%"
2 It is a myth that mandates are legally possible in all
countries.
At least in Germany it is impossible or very difficult to
make mandates legally valid.
Before I am ready to believe this (often-repeated) opinion (based
probably on a misunderstanding of what it means to mandate Green OA),
I would like to hear (i) whether in Germany it is not "legally valid"
to mandate that institutional research performance review is based on
research output (i.e., "publish or perish" -- nothing to do with OA)
and (ii) whether in Germany it is not "legally valid" to mandate that
the research articles submitted for institutional performance review
should be submitted (say) by email in PDF rather than (say) by mail
in hard copy (in other words, a mere bureaucratic procedure).
Once we have the authoritative legal answer on (i) and (ii) for
Germany, we will be in a better position to judge whether it is
indeed true that Germany is not in a position to mandate deposit in
the institutional repository (as the bureaucratic procedure for
submitting research article output for performance review). (Likewise
nothing to do with OA, as the deposit can be Closed Access if the
researcher wishes.)
3. It is a myth that deposit with closed access is
legally possible in all countries.
At least in Germany the copyright act forbids such
depositing without the consent of the holder of the
exclusive rights.
See
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/
(a) I do not see at this link anything other than Mr. Graf's
re-statement of his own opinion on this question.
(b) Is it Mr. Graf's opinion that in Germany a researcher cannot
submit a hard copy of his own published article to his own
institution for performance review?
(c) ...cannot email a soft copy of his own published article to his
own institution for performance review?
(d) ...cannot deposit a Closed Access soft copy of his own article
in his institutional repository for internal performance review?
(Again, nothing to do with having to make the article OA; just a
bureaucratic procedure for institution-internal performance review.)
(e) Is it Mr. Graf's opinion that in Germany a researcher cannot mail
a reprint of his own research article to an individual
reprint-requester for research purposes?
(f) ...cannot email an eprint of his own research article to an
individual eprint-requester for research purposes?
4. It is a myth that the "Request Button" works. See my
little tests
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5193609/ http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5
247312/
On October 11, I requested 7 titles from the U of
Tasmania repository found with the following
query:
http://tinyurl.com/5dbssm
On October 12 and 14 I get summa summarum 2 results, i.e.
the PDFs of the requested eprints.
For me this is enough empirical evidence to say that
there is until now no empirical evidence that the RCB
works!
Mr. Graf has lost me: Is his point that in this particular sample,
only 2 of 7 authors responded, and it took 2-3 days to get the
requested eprint via the semi-automatic "almost-OA" Email Eprint
Request Button? What is supposed to follow from that empirical
evidence?
The Button worked. In this case the two responding authors were late
in performing the one keystroke it takes to authorize the emailing of
the eprint, and the other five authors may not have seen (or
understood) the email request at all, probably because authors are
not used to it, because the Button is still relatively rare (and
instruction on the Button even rarer). (Wouldn't "empirical evidence"
require a rather bigger, longer, and more diverse sample?)
5. It is a myth to think that [it] is all a question of
embargo terms.
There are disciplines with publishers which are making
case-to-case decisions and publishers which don't accept
green OA. Depositing eprints closed access which cannot
be used before the last dying author is 70 years dead
doesn't make sense.
The rationale for the weaker ID/OA Immediate Deposit Mandate (with OA
optional, instead of an Immediate OA Mandate) is that it is hard for
institutions (or funders) to reach consensus on the adoption of the
stronger Immediate OA mandate. ID/OA is a default compromise that
ensures immediate deposit (unlike Delayed Deposit Mandates) and it
also ensures universal deposit (unlike Copyright-Retention Mandates
with Opt-Out ). ID/OA moots copyright issues as well as publisher
embargoes.
It is certain that the ID/OA Mandate can be adopted worldwide, with
no legal obstacles. It is certain that ID/OA can deliver at least 63%
immediate OA (because at least 63% of journals already endorse
immediate OA self-archiving). It is also certain that ID/OA plus the
Button can deliver the remaining 37% Almost-OA (and that authors will
respond much more reliably once ID/OA plus the Button becomes more
widespread).
The only element of uncertainty is how quickly universal ID/OA plus
the Button plus 63% Immediate-OA plus 37% Almost-OA will lead to 100%
OA (but in the meantime, unlike now, most research usage needs will
be covered).
My guess is that the transition to 100% OA will be pretty fast (since
100% OA is optimal, inevitable, and already long overdue, with the
only thing that holding it up for years and years now being
keystrokes -- and hence ID/OA is precisely that: a Keystroke Mandate,
indeed a Bureaucratic Keystroke Mandate, designed to get all of OA's
target content systematically deposited worldwide, to the benefit of
researchers, their institutions, their funders, and the public that
funds the funders and the institutions).
But in any case, if someone thinks ID/OA is too weak, let them try to
upgrade it to a stronger mandate. But meanwhile, adopt ID/OA and get
those Keys Stroked, moving us from 15% OA to 63% OA and 37% Almost-OA
at a stroke, so to speak.
No more theorizing instead about stronger, but unreachable options
(e.g., copyright reform); and no more digital paralysis.
6. It is a myth that the primary aim of the OA movement
is to make the journal literature free.
A lot of people don't share this position. For a broader
definition of OA
see
http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5251764/
That appears to be Mr. Graf's definition. The definition adopted by
the drafters of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), which
coined the term Open Access specifies the target literature quite
explicitly:
"The literature that should be freely accessible online
is that which scholars give to the world without
expectation of payment. Primarily, this category
encompasses their peer-reviewed journal articles, but it
also includes any unreviewed preprints that they might
wish to put online for comment or to alert colleagues to
important research findings ."
Stevan Harnad
Received on Thu Nov 20 2008 - 02:13:46 GMT