boaiforum messages

--047d7b339f5fc5fcc504c4c95860
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

**Cross-Posted**

The perplexed GOAL reader need not cringe. As promised, I shall not be
replying to Jan Velterop. Instead I shall try to put into context extra
re-use rights that some are making such a fuss about.

ON OVER-SELLING THE IMPORTANCE AND URGENCY OF CC-BY
or
FIRST THINGS FIRST

I think there has been a vast overstatement and overselling of the alleged
need for -- and urgency of -- re-use rights
(CC-BY<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/>)
for peer reviewed research journal articles today, especially in view of
the fact that CC-BY is much harder to get journal publishers to agree to,
today, and not all (perhaps not even most) authors and disciplines need or
want CC-BY, today.

More re-use rights (Libre
OA<http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-=
oa.html>)
-- just like Gold
OA<http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html>-- will
come, where needed and wanted, after we have grasped the 100% Green
Gratis OA that is already within our reach, today. But neither Libre nor
Gold OA is even remotely as important or urgent as (Gratis) OA itself is,
today: free online access to the journal articles of which 80% are
accessible only to subscribers today.

Green OA is the solution to the problem of providing the missing 80% of OA.
All that's needed is to mandate it.

But insisting now on Libre OA (further re-use rights), just like insisting
now on Gold OA, is simply demanding still more, and thereby raising higher
the obstacles to getting the 80% Green
OA<https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/gSc6EpFW9tA>(
Gratis <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-08.htm>) that
is already within reach and has been for years through Green (Gratis) OA
self-archiving mandates <http://roarmap.eprints.org/> by researchers'
institutions and funders (as so brilliantly described and spear-headed by
Professor Bernard Rentier in his recent GOAL posting ↵
<http://bit.ly/M8Gf3G>
).

And all in the name of further benefits that are not even remotely as
important, urgent or reachable as Green Gratis OA.

Consider that there is a practical contradiction between trying to scale up
the adoption of Green OA mandates by funders and institutions to 100% today
while insisting on Libre OA (e.g., CC-BY) today.

For not one of the world's Green OA mandates, whether funder of
institutional, is a Libre OA mandate -- and with good reason: Green OA
mandates are a research-community adaptation to the publisher status quo:

Publication is still largely subscription-based today, and copyright is
mostly being transferred to publishers (rather than being non-exclusively
licensed, as we of course want it to be, eventually). That's the status
quo.

And self-archiving of the author's refereed final draft is the research
community's own self-help response, within this publisher status quo.

The result is Green Gratis OA; that is the thing that the research
community needs the most today. That is what maximizes research access,
uptake, usage, applications and impact by making it accessible to all
users, not just those whose institutions can afford subscription access.

But Green Gratis OA is only at about 20% worldwide today, because so few
institutions and funders have as yet mandated it.

Opening up the Libre OA front, alongside the Gold OA front, instead of
pushing full-speed ahead on the all-important Green Gratis OA-mandating
front toward 100% Green Gratis OA is simply adding further obstacles,
handicaps and distractions to the Green Gratis OA front -- as well as
providing an unscalable model that most other countries will not want (or
be able) to follow today.

And the most important thing to keep in mind is that these further
obstacles, handicaps and distractions are nowhere near as important and
urgent as (Green, Gratis) OA itself. (Not to mention that the fastest and
surest way to reach eventual Libre OA as well as Gold OA is to first
mandate Green Gratis OA universally.)

I think it would be practical, realistic and helpful to make it clear to OA
advocates today that the primary, immediate, and already fully
reachable<http://www.google.ca/search?client=3Dsafari&rls=3Den&q=3Dharnad+%=
22over-reaching%22&ie=3DUTF-8&oe=3DUTF-8&redir_esc=3D&ei=3DsPj-T-7nG4nv0gGE=
juWEBw>target
is 100% Green Gratis OA, and that the re-use rights and the Gold OA
can and will come later, after this urgent primary goal is reached, whereas
it will only make it gratuitously harder to reach this urgent primary goal
if Libre or Gold OA are needlessly insisted upon in advance.

A word to the wise.

I close by re-quoting the spot-on and timely
words<http://www.mail-archive.com/goal AT eprints.org/msg08337.html>of
Professor Rentier in his recent GOAL posting, about the second
practical
policy compromise (immediacy) that  first needs to be made in order to
reach 100% Green Gratis OA (*emphasis* added):

"...*I have mandated deposit in my University's repository (ORBi) and ↵
since
there is no way I can force my colleagues to "obey", I have [simply] ↵
made
official a procedure whereby the only publication list being considered in
a Liege University member's C.V. is the one produced by ORBi. Simple. This
explains ORBi's success... Of course, this does not solve the question of
immediate open access. Only those papers published by publishers who agree
upon immediate access on line are immediately accessible on line. The
others must be immediately deposited but cannot be seen fully upon
publication. They must await the end of the publishing house's embargo
period, 6 months for most of them. Meanwhile, the title and metadata appear
on any search engine by keywords, authors' names, University, etc. and a
single click sends [an immediate eprint] request to the author. There are a
few minutes to a few hours before the final author version is sent: it
depends on the author's availability and response time. Usually less that
24 hours unless the author is on a weeklong trek in Nepal.... Compliance...
has been very high, at first because of the soft but firm coercive top down
pressure, but nowadays because our authors have fully realised the very
much larger readership with which OA provides them and the citation
advantage from which they benefit. My most reluctant colleagues have now
become ORBi's best advocates. I consider this a success. OA's worst enemy
out there is OA [fundamentalism]*=85"

*Integrating Institutional and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian
Model*<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-Integrating-In=
stitutional-and-Funder-Open-Access-Mandates-Belgian-Model.html>

**

*The Li=E8ge ORBi model: Mandatory policy without rights retention but link=
ed
to assessment procedures*<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives=
/853-The-Liege-ORBi-model-Mandatory-policy-without-rights-retention-but-lin=
ked-to-assessment-procedures.html>

**

*EOS: New worldwide organization for universities promoting open
access*<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/592-EOS-New-world=
wide-organization-for-universities-promoting-open-access.html>

**

*Repositories: Institutional, Thematic, or
Central?*<http://recteur.blogs.ulg.ac.be/?p=3D248>

**

*Liege Mandate Definitely Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/502-Liege-Mandate-Defini=
tely-Immediate-DepositOptional-Access-or-Dual-DepositRelease-IDOADDR.html>
*

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Jan Velterop <velterop AT gmail.com> ↵
wrote:

> It can be very good to convene a fresh set of minds to tackle the ways to
> get to open access. However, the most important point is to avoid =97and
> reverse =97 the watering down of what open access is and why it is
> important. The simple message that open access means that one can do
> anything one likes with scholarly publications as long as the author is
> acknowledged has been lost in the, at times revisionist, discussions abou=
t
> expediency, concessions to the concept of open access, re-labelling and
> proliferation of qualifiers, etc. "Back to basics" is my device.
>
> Some disambiguation and comments interleaved in the message to the
> 'perplexed reader' below.
>
> On 13 Jul 2012, at 15:21, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> FOR THE PERPLEXED GOAL READER:
>
> For the perplexed reader who is wondering what on earth all this to and
> fro on GOAL is about:
>
> 1. Gratis Open Access (OA) means free online access to peer-reviewed
> journal articles.
>
>
> At the BOAI in 2001, the term "open" was deliberately chosen to ↵
avoid the
> impression that 'free' (=3D gratis) is enough. The Initiative (
> http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read) says: "By "open ↵
access" to this
> literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet,
> permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, =
or
> link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass
> them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, witho=
ut
> financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from
> gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproductio=
n
> and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should =
be
> to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to
> be properly acknowledged and cited."
>
> The "crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use ↵
them
> for any other lawful purpose" seems subsequently to have fallen out ↵
of th=
e
> equation. However, it is essential for academic literature to be called
> "Open Access". The term Open Access now appears to have been ↵
reduced to
> essentially 'free' (gratis) access, exactly what we sought to avoid at th=
e
> BOAI meeting in 2001.
>
>
> 2. Libre OA means free online access to peer-reviewed journal articles +
> certain re-use rights (often CC-BY).
>
>
> 'Libre OA' is tautological, as 'open' is already 'libre'. The perceived
> need for a term like 'libre access' has only come about because of the
> adulteration of the originally intended meaning of 'open access'.
>
>
> 3. Green OA means OA provided by authors self-archiving their
> peer-reviewed final drafts free for all online (either in the author's
> institutional repository or website or in an institution-external central
> repository)
>
>
> Green OA doesn't exist. Gold OA neither. OA is (should be, and was, befor=
e
> it was tampered with) unambiguous. 'Green' and 'gold' are just ways that
> lead to OA. Tactics, if you wish. Confusion about the goal and the means =
to
> reach the goal has reigned for almost a decade now, to the detriment of a
> clear vision of the goal. The way to the goal has become far more importa=
nt
> in the discussions than the goal itself. That has to be remedied.
>
>
> 4. Gold OA means OA provided by authors publishing in OA journals that
> provide free online access to their articles (Gratis or Libre), often at
> the cost of an author publication fee.
>
>
> To repeat: gold OA doesn't exist, and green OA neither. Gold is one of th=
e
> means to reach the goal and it mainly involves a shift away from financin=
g
> publishing with subscriptions and replacing it by financing with subsidie=
s,
> either 'by the drink' via author-side article processing fees or directly
> to the journals by institutional, governmental, or funding agency subsidi=
es
> of some kind.
>
>
> 5. Global OA today stands at about 20% of yearly journal article output,
> though this varies by discipline, with some higher (particle physics near
> 100%) and some lower (chemistry among the lowest).
>
> 6. About two thirds of the global 20% OA is Green and one third is Gold.
> Almost all of it is Gratis rather than Libre.
>
>
> Apart from the fact that gold OA doesn't exist, the so-called gold method
> to achieve OA is almost all real OA, i.e. 'libre', and not just free
> (gratis). The output of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, Springer Open and hybrid, OUP
> open and hybrid, is all true OA ('libre'), so the statement that ↵
"almost
> all gold OA is gratis rather than libre" needs serious substantiation ↵
to
> say the least.
>
>
> 7. Institutions and funders that mandate Green OA have much higher Green
> OA rates (70%+), but only if they have effective Green OA mandates -- and
> only a tiny proportion of the world's institutions and funders mandate OA
> as yet have Green OA mandates at all.
>
> 8. Ineffective Green OA mandates are the ones that require self-archiving
> only if and when the publisher endorses self-archiving: 60% of journals
> endorse immediate Green OA self-archiving; 40% ask for embargoes of varyi=
ng
> in length from 6-12 months to 5 years or indefinitely.
>
>
> "(Reluctantly) allowing" is not the same as ↵
"endorsing". As for embargoes=
,
> the biggest mistake made in the original BOAI statement is to leave out t=
he
> word 'immediate'.
>
>
> 9. Effective Green OA mandates (ID/OA: Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access)
> are the ones that require immediate deposit of all articles, but if the
> publisher has an OA embargo, access to the deposit can be set as ↵
"Closed
> Access" during the allowable embargo period (preferably no more than ↵
6
> months).
>
>
> Another confusing acronym introduced here, in which even OA means
> something other than Open Access. It almost appears as if confusing
> researchers has become the goal. What is needed is a dramatically
> simplified message: "Open Access means that you can do anything with ↵
an
> article as long as you acknowledge the original author".
>
>
> 10. During any embargo, the institutional repository has an automated
> email-eprint-request button that allows users to request a copy for
> research purposes with one click, and allows the author to comply with on=
e
> click. (This is not OA but "Almost-OA".)
>
>
> Well, why not. "Almost-OA", "Gold OA", "Green ↵
OA", "ID/OA", "Gratis OA",
> "Libre OA" =97 not seeing the forest for the trees.
>
>
> 11. The rationale for ID/OA + the Almost-OA button is to ensure that 100%
> of papers are immediately deposited and accessible for research purposes,
> not just the 60% that have publisher endorsement.
>
> 12. The expectation is that once ID/OA is mandated globally by 100% of
> institutions and funders, not only will it provide 60% immediate-OA plus
> 40% Almost-OA, but it will hasten the end of OA embargoes, as the power a=
nd
> utility of OA become evident, familiar and indispensable to all
> researchers, as authors and users.
>
> There are additional details about optimal mandates. (Deposit should be
> designated the sole procedure for submitting publications for institution=
al
> performance review, and funders should mandate convergent institutional
> deposit rather than divergent institution-external deposit.)
>
> And the further expectation is that once Gratis Green OA is mandated by
> institutions and funders globally, it will hasten the advent of Libre OA
> (CC-BY) and Gold OA.
>
>
> This may well be the case, or it may not. In any event, it makes sense to
> prepare for the golden way to support OA.
>
>
> All the frustration and complaints being vented in the recent GOAL
> postings are with the lack of OA. But frustration will not bring OA. Only
> mandates will. And the optimal mandate is ID/OA, even if it does not conf=
er
> instant global OA.
>
>
> Much of the frustration is self-inflicted by muddying the waters, where
> crystal clear water is needed.
>
>
> First things first. Don't let the unreachable best get in the way of the
> reachable better. Grasp what is already within reach.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 AT ↵
cam.ac.uk>wrote=
:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 AT ↵
cam.ac.uk>wrot=
e:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop <velterop AT ↵
gmail.com>wrote=
:
>>>
>>>> Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege ↵
(ORBi)
>>>> contains 3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most ↵
deposits=
 of
>>>> articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, ↵
are mar=
ked
>>>> "restricted access" and not accessible to me, and ↵
'libre' access seems
>>>> completely out of scope. So if this is the best example of a ↵
successfu=
l OA
>>>> repository, Peter Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the ↵
impressi=
on
>>>> that compliance is essentially zero, in terms of Open Access.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I am generalizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This says:
>>
>>
>> *Reference: Ivanova, T. et al - (2012) - Preparation and
>> characterisation of Ag incorporated Al2O3 nanocomposite films obtained ↵
b=
y
>> sol-gel method [ ↵
handle:2268/127219<http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/12=
7219>
>>  ]*
>>
>> *Document(s) requested:*
>>  *Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf - Publisher postprint *
>>
>> *The desired document is not currently available on open access.
>> Nevertheless you can request an offprint from the author(s) through ↵
the
>> form below. If your request is accepted you will receive by email a ↵
link
>> allowing you access to the document for 5 days, 5 download attempts
>> maximum.*
>>
>> *...
>> *
>> *The University expressly draws your attention to the fact that the
>> electronic copy can only be used for the strict purposes of ↵
illustration
>> and teaching and academic and scientific research, as long as it is ↵
not =
for
>> the purposes of financial gain, and that the source, including the
>> author=E2=80=99s name is indicated.
>> *
>>
>> So If I am a small business creating science-based work I am not ↵
allowed
>> the "Open Access" from Liege. If I represent a patient group ↵
I am not
>> allowed this material. If I am in government making eveidence-based ↵
poli=
cy
>> I am not allowed it. It is the pernicious model that only academics ↵
need
>> and can have access to the results of scholarship.
>>
>> As I have said before University repositories seem to delight in the
>> process of restricting access.
>>
>> No wonder that no-one will use this repo. All it seems to do is mail ↵
the
>> author and I can do that anyway (presumably if the author leaves the ↵
uni
>> then the email goes nowhere).
>>
>> In today's market any young reseacher will use #icanhazpdf instead. I ↵
am
>> not condoning #icanhazpdf but I am far more sympathetic to it than ↵
repos=
.
>>
>> But I have been told to shut up and I will. I'm slightly disappointed
>> that no-one is prepared to consider the possibility we should do ↵
somethi=
ng
>> different.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL AT eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL AT eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL AT eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>

--047d7b339f5fc5fcc504c4c95860
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div ↵
style=3D"text-align:center">**Cross-Posted**</div><div><br></div>The p=
erplexed GOAL reader need not cringe. As promised, I shall not be replying =
to Jan Velterop. Instead I shall try to put into context extra re-use right=
s that some are making such a fuss about.<div>
<br></div><div style=3D"text-align:center">ON ↵
OVER-SELLING THE IMPORTANCE A=
ND URGENCY OF CC-BY</div><div ↵
style=3D"text-align:center">or</div><div styl=
e=3D"text-align:center">FIRST THINGS ↵
FIRST</div><div><br></div><div><p styl=
e=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px Arial;color:#333233">
I think there has been a vast overstatement and overselling of the alleged =
need for -- and urgency of -- re-use rights (<a ↵
href=3D"http://creativecomm=
ons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"><span ↵
style=3D"text-decoration:underline;color:#0=
03366">CC-BY</span></a>) for peer reviewed research journal ↵
articles today,=
 especially in view of the fact that CC-BY is much harder to get journal pu=
blishers to agree to, today, and not all (perhaps not even most) authors an=
d disciplines need or want CC-BY, today.</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">More re=
-use rights (<a ↵
href=3D"http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengol=
d-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html"><span ↵
style=3D"text-decoration:underline;colo=
r:#003366">Libre OA</span></a>) -- just like <a ↵
href=3D"http://www.nature.c=
om/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html"><span ↵
style=3D"text-decoration:underl=
ine;color:#003366">Gold OA</span></a> -- will come, where ↵
needed and wanted=
,=A0after we have grasped the 100% Green Gratis OA that is already within o=
ur reach, today. But neither Libre nor Gold OA is even remotely as importan=
t or urgent as (Gratis) OA itself is, today: free online access to the jour=
nal articles of which 80% are accessible only to subscribers today.</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">Green O=
A is the solution to the problem of providing the missing 80% of OA. All th=
at&#39;s needed is to mandate it.</p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">But ins=
isting now on Libre OA (further re-use rights), just like insisting now on =
Gold OA, is simply demanding still more, and thereby raising higher the obs=
tacles to getting the 80% <a ↵
href=3D"https://plus.google.com/10937755679618=
3035206/posts/gSc6EpFW9tA"><span ↵
style=3D"text-decoration:underline;color:#=
003366">Green OA</span></a> (<a ↵
href=3D"http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/=
newsletter/08-02-08.htm"><span ↵
style=3D"text-decoration:underline;color:#00=
3366">Gratis</span></a>) that is already within reach and ↵
has been for year=
s through <a href=3D"http://roarmap.eprints.org/"><span ↵
style=3D"text-decor=
ation:underline;color:#003366">Green (Gratis) OA self-archiving ↵
mandates</s=
pan></a> by researchers&#39; institutions and funders (as so ↵
brilliantly de=
scribed and spear-headed by Professor Bernard Rentier in his <a ↵
href=3D"htt=
p://bit.ly/M8Gf3G">recent GOAL posting</a>).</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">And all=
 in the name of further benefits that are not even remotely as important, u=
rgent or reachable as Green Gratis OA.</p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">Conside=
r that there is a practical contradiction between trying to=A0scale up the =
adoption of Green OA mandates by funders and institutions to 100% today whi=
le insisting on Libre OA (e.g., CC-BY) today.=A0</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">For not=
 one of the world&#39;s Green OA mandates, whether funder of ↵
institutional,=
=A0is a Libre OA mandate -- and with good reason: Green OA mandates are a r=
esearch-community adaptation to the publisher status quo:=A0</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">Publica=
tion is still largely subscription-based today, and copyright is mostly bei=
ng transferred to publishers (rather than being non-exclusively licensed, a=
s we of course want it to be, eventually). That&#39;s the status ↵
quo.=A0</p=
>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">And sel=
f-archiving of the author&#39;s refereed final draft is the research ↵
commun=
ity&#39;s own self-help response, within this publisher status ↵
quo.=A0</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">The res=
ult is Green Gratis OA; that is the thing that the research community needs=
 the most today. That is what maximizes research access, uptake, usage, app=
lications and impact by making it accessible to all users, not just those w=
hose institutions can afford subscription access.=A0=A0</p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233"><br></p=
><p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">But Gr=
een Gratis OA is only at about 20% worldwide today, because so few institut=
ions and funders have as yet mandated it.</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">Opening=
 up the Libre OA front, alongside the Gold OA front, instead of pushing ful=
l-speed ahead on the all-important Green Gratis OA-mandating front toward 1=
00% Green Gratis OA is simply adding further obstacles, handicaps and distr=
actions to the Green Gratis OA front -- as well as providing an unscalable =
model that most other countries will not want (or be able) to follow today.=
</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">And the=
 most important thing to keep in mind is that these further obstacles, hand=
icaps and distractions are nowhere near as important and urgent as (Green, =
Gratis) OA itself. (Not to mention that=A0the fastest and surest way to rea=
ch eventual Libre OA as well as Gold OA is to first mandate Green Gratis OA=
 universally.)</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">I think=
 it would be practical, realistic and helpful to make it clear to OA advoca=
tes today that the primary, immediate, and already fully <a ↵
href=3D"http://=
www.google.ca/search?client=3Dsafari&amp;rls=3Den&amp;q=3Dharnad+%22over-re=
aching%22&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;oe=3DUTF-8&amp;redir_esc=3D&amp;ei=3DsPj-T-7nG=
4nv0gGEjuWEBw"><span ↵
style=3D"text-decoration:underline;color:#003366">reac=
hable</span></a> target is 100% Green Gratis OA, and that the ↵
re-use rights=
 and the Gold OA can and will come later, after this urgent primary goal is=
 reached, whereas it will only make it gratuitously harder to reach this ur=
gent primary goal if Libre or Gold OA are needlessly insisted upon in advan=
ce.</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">A word =
to the wise.</p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233">I close=
 by <a href=3D"http://www.mail-archive.com/goal AT ↵
eprints.org/msg08337.html">=
re-quoting the spot-on and timely words</a> of Professor Rentier in his ↵
rec=
ent GOAL posting, about the second practical policy compromise (immediacy) =
that =A0first needs to be made in order to reach 100% Green Gratis OA ↵
(<u>e=
mphasis</u> added):</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#333233;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#555555"><span s=
tyle=3D"color:#333233">&quot;</span>...<i>I have ↵
mandated deposit in my Uni=
versity&#39;s repository (ORBi) and since there is no way I can force my ↵
co=
lleagues to &quot;obey&quot;, I have [simply] made official a procedure ↵
whe=
reby the only publication list being considered in a Liege University membe=
r&#39;s C.V. is the one produced by ORBi. Simple. This explains ↵
ORBi&#39;s =
success... Of course, this does not solve the question of ↵
<u>immediate</u> =
open access. Only those papers published by publishers who agree upon immed=
iate access on line are immediately accessible on line. The others must be =
immediately deposited but cannot be seen fully upon publication. They must =
await the end of the publishing house&#39;s embargo period, 6 months for ↵
mo=
st of them. Meanwhile, the title and metadata appear on any search engine b=
y keywords, authors&#39; names, University, etc. and <u>a single ↵
click send=
s [an immediate eprint] request to the author</u>. There are a few ↵
minutes =
to a few hours before the final author version is sent: it depends on the a=
uthor&#39;s availability and response time. Usually less that 24 hours ↵
unle=
ss the author is on a weeklong trek in Nepal.... Compliance... has been ver=
y high, at first because of the soft but firm coercive top down pressure, b=
ut nowadays because our authors have fully realised the very much larger re=
adership with which OA provides them and the citation advantage from which =
they benefit. My most reluctant colleagues have now become ORBi&#39;s best ↵
=
advocates. I consider this a success. <u>OA&#39;s worst enemy out ↵
there is =
OA [fundamentalism]</u></i>=85&quot;</p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#555555;min-heig=
ht:14.0px"><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px Arial"><a ↵
href=3D"http://ope=
naccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-Integrating-Institutional-and-F=
under-Open-Access-Mandates-Belgian-Model.html"><b>Integrating ↵
Institutional=
 and Funder Open Access Mandates: Belgian Model</b></a></p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;min-height:14.0px"><b>=
</b><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px Arial"><a ↵
href=3D"http://ope=
naccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/853-The-Liege-ORBi-model-Mandatory-=
policy-without-rights-retention-but-linked-to-assessment-procedures.html"><=
b>The Li=E8ge ORBi model: Mandatory policy without rights retention but lin=
ked to assessment procedures</b></a></p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;min-height:14.0px"><b>=
</b><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px Arial"><a ↵
href=3D"http://ope=
naccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/592-EOS-New-worldwide-organization-=
for-universities-promoting-open-access.html"><b>EOS: New ↵
worldwide organiza=
tion for universities promoting open access</b></a></p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;min-height:14.0px"><b>=
</b><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;color:#003366"><span s=
tyle=3D"text-decoration:underline"><a ↵
href=3D"http://recteur.blogs.ulg.ac.b=
e/?p=3D248"><b>Repositories: Institutional, Thematic, or ↵
Central?</b></a></=
span></p>

<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial;min-height:14.0px"><b>=
</b><br></p>
<p style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:12.0px ↵
Arial"><b><a href=3D"http://=
openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/502-Liege-Mandate-Definitely-Imm=
ediate-DepositOptional-Access-or-Dual-DepositRelease-IDOADDR.html">Liege Ma=
ndate Definitely ↵
Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access=A0</a></b></p>
<div><br></div><br><div ↵
class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:08 =
AM, Jan Velterop <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a ↵
href=3D"mailto:velterop AT gmail.com=
" target=3D"_blank">velterop AT ↵
gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 ↵
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex">
<div style=3D"word-wrap:break-word">It can be very good to ↵
convene a fresh =
set of minds to tackle the ways to get to open access. However, the most im=
portant point is to avoid =97and reverse <span ↵
style=3D"font-size:11px">=97=
<span style=3D"font-size:12px">=A0the watering down of what ↵
open access is =
and why it is important. The simple message that open access means that one=
 can do anything one likes with scholarly publications as long as the autho=
r is acknowledged has been lost in the, at times revisionist, discussions a=
bout expediency, concessions to the concept of open access, re-labelling an=
d proliferation of qualifiers, etc. &quot;Back to basics&quot; is my ↵
device=
.=A0</span></span><div>
<br></div><div>Some disambiguation and comments interleaved ↵
in the message =
to the &#39;perplexed reader&#39; ↵
below.<div><br><div><div class=3D"im"><di=
v>On 13 Jul 2012, at 15:21, Stevan Harnad ↵
wrote:</div><br><blockquote type=
=3D"cite">
<div>FOR THE PERPLEXED GOAL ↵
READER:</div><div><br></div><div>For the perple=
xed reader who is wondering what on earth all this to and fro on GOAL is ab=
out:</div><div><br></div><div>1. Gratis Open ↵
Access (OA) means free online =
access to peer-reviewed journal articles.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div>At the BOAI in ↵
2001, the term &quot;open&=
quot; was deliberately chosen to avoid the impression that ↵
&#39;free&#39; (=
=3D gratis) is enough. The Initiative (<a ↵
href=3D"http://www.soros.org/open=
access/read" ↵
target=3D"_blank">http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read</a>) ↵
sa=
ys: &quot;By &quot;open access&quot; to this literature, we mean ↵
its free a=
vailability on=20
        the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, =
distribute,=20
        print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl t=
hem=20
        for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any ot=
her=20
        lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers oth=
er=20
        than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. =
The=20
        only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role=
 for=20
        copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over th=
e integrity=20
        of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and ↵
cited.&=
quot;</div><div><br></div><div>The ↵
&quot;crawl them for indexing, pass them=
 as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose&quot; seems ↵
=
subsequently to have fallen out of the equation. However, it is essential f=
or academic literature to be called &quot;Open Access&quot;. The term ↵
Open =
Access now appears to have been reduced to essentially &#39;free&#39; ↵
(grat=
is) access, exactly what we sought to avoid at the BOAI meeting in 2001.</d=
iv>
<div><div class=3D"im"><br><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite">
<div><br></div><div>2. Libre OA means free online ↵
access to peer-reviewed j=
ournal articles + certain re-use rights (often ↵
CC-BY).</div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div></div>&#39;Libre OA&#39; is ↵
tautological, as &#39;open&#39; is=
 already &#39;libre&#39;. The perceived need for a term like ↵
&#39;libre acc=
ess&#39; has only come about because of the adulteration of the originally ↵
=
intended meaning of &#39;open access&#39;.</div>
<div><div class=3D"im"><br><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite"><div><br></div><div>3.=
 Green OA means OA provided by authors self-archiving their peer-reviewed f=
inal drafts free for all online (either in the author&#39;s institutional ↵
r=
epository or website or in an institution-external central repository)</div=
>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div>Green OA ↵
doesn&#39;t exist. Gold OA neith=
er. OA is (should be, and was, before it was tampered with) unambiguous. ↵
&#=
39;Green&#39; and &#39;gold&#39; are just ways that lead to OA. ↵
Tactics, if=
 you wish. Confusion about the goal and the means to reach the goal has rei=
gned for almost a decade now, to the detriment of a clear vision of the goa=
l. The way to the goal has become far more important in the discussions tha=
n the goal itself. That has to be remedied.</div>
<div><div class=3D"im"><br><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite">
<div><br></div><div>4. Gold OA means OA provided by ↵
authors publishing in O=
A journals that provide free online access to their articles (Gratis or Lib=
re), often at the cost of an author publication ↵
fee.</div></blockquote>
<div><br></div></div>To repeat: gold OA doesn&#39;t ↵
exist, and green OA nei=
ther. Gold is one of the means to reach the goal and it mainly involves a s=
hift away from financing publishing with subscriptions and replacing it by =
financing with subsidies, either &#39;by the drink&#39; via author-side ↵
art=
icle processing fees or directly to the journals by institutional, governme=
ntal, or funding agency subsidies of some kind.</div>
<div><div class=3D"im"><br><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite"><div><br></div>
<div>5. Global OA today stands at about 20% of yearly journal article ↵
outpu=
t, though this varies by discipline, with some higher (particle physics nea=
r 100%) and some lower (chemistry among the ↵
lowest).</div><div><br></div>

<div>6. About two thirds of the global 20% OA is Green and one third is ↵
Gol=
d. Almost all of it is Gratis rather than ↵
Libre.</div></blockquote><div><br=
></div></div>Apart from the fact that gold OA doesn&#39;t ↵
exist, the so-cal=
led gold method to achieve OA is almost all real OA, i.e. ↵
&#39;libre&#39;, =
and not just free (gratis). The output of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, Springer Open=
 and hybrid, OUP open and hybrid, is all true OA (&#39;libre&#39;), so ↵
the =
statement that &quot;almost all gold OA is gratis rather than ↵
libre&quot; n=
eeds serious substantiation to say the least.</div>
<div><div class=3D"im"><br><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite"><div><br></div><div>7.=
 Institutions and funders that mandate Green OA have much higher Green OA r=
ates (70%+), but only if they have effective Green OA mandates -- and only =
a tiny proportion of the world&#39;s institutions and funders mandate OA ↵
as=
 yet have Green OA mandates at all.</div>

<div><br></div><div>8. Ineffective Green OA mandates ↵
are the ones that requ=
ire self-archiving only if and when the publisher endorses self-archiving: =
60% of journals endorse immediate Green OA self-archiving; 40% ask for emba=
rgoes of varying in length from 6-12 months to 5 years or indefinitely.</di=
v>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div>&quot;(Reluctantly) allowing&quot; is not=
 the same as &quot;endorsing&quot;. As for embargoes, the biggest ↵
mistake m=
ade in the original BOAI statement is to leave out the word ↵
&#39;immediate&=
#39;.</div>
<div><div class=3D"im"><br><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite">
<div><br></div><div>9. Effective Green OA mandates ↵
(ID/OA: Immediate-Deposi=
t/Optional-Access) are the ones that require immediate deposit of all artic=
les, but if the publisher has an OA embargo, access to the deposit can be s=
et as &quot;Closed Access&quot; during the allowable embargo period ↵
(prefer=
ably no more than 6 months).</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div>Another ↵
confusing acronym introduced here=
, in which even OA means something other than Open Access. It almost appear=
s as if confusing researchers has become the goal. What is needed is a dram=
atically simplified message: &quot;Open Access means that you can do ↵
anythi=
ng with an article as long as you acknowledge the original ↵
author&quot;.</d=
iv>
<div><div class=3D"im"><br><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite">
<div><br></div><div>10. During any embargo, the ↵
institutional repository ha=
s an automated email-eprint-request button that allows users to request a c=
opy for research purposes with one click, and allows the author to comply w=
ith one click. (This is not OA but &quot;Almost-OA&quot;.)</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div>Well, why not. ↵
&quot;Almost-OA&quot;, &qu=
ot;Gold OA&quot;, &quot;Green OA&quot;, &quot;ID/OA&quot;, ↵
&quot;Gratis OA&=
quot;, &quot;Libre OA&quot; =97 not seeing the forest for the ↵
trees.</div>
<div><div class=3D"im"><br><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite">
<div><br></div><div>11. The rationale for ID/OA + the ↵
Almost-OA button is t=
o ensure that 100% of papers are immediately deposited and accessible for r=
esearch purposes, not just the 60% that have publisher endorsement.</div>

<div><br></div><div>12. The expectation is that once ↵
ID/OA is mandated glob=
ally by 100% of institutions and funders, not only will it provide 60% imme=
diate-OA plus 40% Almost-OA, but it will hasten the end of OA embargoes, as=
 the power and utility of OA become evident, familiar and indispensable to =
all researchers, as authors and users.=A0</div>

<div><br></div><div>There are additional details about ↵
optimal mandates. (D=
eposit should be designated the sole procedure for submitting publications =
for institutional performance review, and funders should mandate convergent=
 institutional deposit rather than divergent institution-external deposit.)=
=A0</div>

<div><br></div><div>And the further expectation is that ↵
once Gratis Green O=
A is mandated by institutions and funders globally, it will hasten the adve=
nt of Libre OA (CC-BY) and Gold ↵
OA.</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div>
This may well be the case, or it may not. In any event, it makes sense to p=
repare for the golden way to support OA.=A0</div><div><div ↵
class=3D"im"><br=
><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite"><div><br></div><div>All the ↵
frustration and comp=
laints being vented in the recent GOAL postings are with the lack of OA. Bu=
t frustration will not bring OA. Only mandates will. And the optimal mandat=
e is ID/OA, even if it does not confer instant global OA.=A0</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div>Much of the ↵
frustration is self-inflicted=
 by muddying the waters, where crystal clear water is ↵
needed.</div><div><di=
v class=3D"h5"><div><br><blockquote ↵
type=3D"cite">
<div><br></div><div>First things first. Don&#39;t ↵
let the unreachable best =
get in the way of the reachable better. Grasp what is already within reach.=
</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan ↵
Harnad</div><div><br></div><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote">

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <span ↵
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:pm286 AT cam.ac.uk" ↵
target=3D"_blank">pm286 AT cam.ac.uk</a>&gt;<=
/span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" ↵
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8=
ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>On ↵
Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Pe=
ter Murray-Rust <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a ↵
href=3D"mailto:pm286 AT cam.ac.uk" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">pm286 AT cam.ac.uk</a>&gt;</span> ↵
wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc ↵
solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>On ↵
Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Ja=
n Velterop <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a ↵
href=3D"mailto:velterop AT gmail.com" targ=
et=3D"_blank">velterop AT gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> ↵
wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc ↵
solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex">

</blockquote></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br>I am ge=
neralizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This ↵
says:<br>=A0<br></d=
iv><br clear=3D"all"><div ↵
style=3D"margin-left:40px"><i><span>Reference:</s=
pan> <span>Ivanova, T. et al -=20
(2012) - Preparation and characterisation of Ag incorporated Al2O3=20
nanocomposite films obtained by sol-gel method [=A0<a ↵
href=3D"http://orbi.u=
lg.ac.be/handle/2268/127219" ↵
target=3D"_blank">handle:2268/127219</a>=A0]</=
span></i>
		</div><div ↵
style=3D"margin-left:40px"><br></div>
	=09
		<div style=3D"margin-left:40px"><i>Document(s) ↵
requested:</i></div>
	=09
			<div ↵
style=3D"min-height:20px;margin-left:90px;background:url(&quot;&quo=
t;) no-repeat scroll left center transparent;padding-left:25px">
		 	<i><span>Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf</span> - Publisher postprint
		 	</i></div>
	=09
	=09
		<div style=3D"margin-left:40px"><br></div><p ↵
style=3D"margin-left:40px"><=
i>The desired document is not currently available on=20
open access. Nevertheless you can request an offprint from the author(s)
 through the form below. If your request is accepted you will receive by
 email a link allowing you access to the document <strong>for 5 days, 5 ↵
dow=
nload attempts maximum</strong>.</i></p><p ↵
style=3D"margin-left:40px"><i>..=
.<br></i></p></div><div ↵
style=3D"margin-left:40px"><i>The University expres=
sly draws your attention to the fact that the=20
electronic copy can only be used for the strict purposes of illustration
 and teaching and academic and scientific research, as long as it is not
 for the purposes of financial gain, and that the source, including the=20
author=E2=80=99s name is indicated.
	                   =20
	                    <br></i></div><br>So If I am a ↵
small business creating=
 science-based work I am not allowed the &quot;Open Access&quot; from ↵
Liege=
. If I represent a patient group I am not allowed this material. If I am in=
 government making eveidence-based policy I am not allowed it. It is the pe=
rnicious model that only academics need and can have access to the results =
of scholarship.<br>

<br>As I have said before University repositories seem to delight in the ↵
pr=
ocess of restricting access.<br><br>No wonder that no-one will use ↵
this rep=
o. All it seems to do is mail the author and I can do that anyway (presumab=
ly if the author leaves the uni then the email goes nowhere). <br>

<br>In today&#39;s market any young reseacher will use #icanhazpdf ↵
instead.=
 I am not condoning #icanhazpdf but I am far more sympathetic to it than re=
pos.<br><br>But I have been told to shut up and I will. I&#39;m ↵
slightly di=
sappointed that no-one is prepared to consider the possibility we should do=
 something different.<div>

<div><br>
<br><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular ↵
Informatics<br>Unil=
ever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 ↵
1EW, UK<br=
><a href=3D"tel:%2B44-1223-763069" ↵
value=3D"+441223763069" target=3D"_blank=
">+44-1223-763069</a><br>

</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:GOAL AT eprints.org" ↵
target=3D"_blank">GOAL AT eprints.org</a><=
br>
<a href=3D"http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" ↵
target=3D"=
_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing ↵
list<br><a =
href=3D"mailto:GOAL AT eprints.org" ↵
target=3D"_blank">GOAL AT eprints.org</a><br>=
<a href=3D"http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" ↵
target=3D"=
_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div><br>__________________=
_____________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:GOAL AT eprints.org">GOAL AT ↵
eprints.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" ↵
target=3D"=
_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b339f5fc5fcc504c4c95860--

--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: Reaching for the Reachable