Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster, Coordinator of Scholarly Communications, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

From: Jean-Claude =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gu=E9don?= <jean.claude.guedon AT umontreal.ca>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 10:04:52 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster, Coordinator of Scholarly Communications, University of Nebraska-Lincoln from richard.poynder AT cantab.net
      • This Message


I would expect that most research, following in the scientific ethos
patterns unearthed a long time ago by R. K. Merton, would strive for
prestige, authority and visibility rather than money (directly -
indirectly the first three terms will eventually translate into money
anyway). This is what Merton called "disinterestedness".  If I place 
my
research in OA with a CC-by licence (or license, as the case may be),
this is because I seek maximum visibility. If someone reproduces my
CC-by work and sells it, it does not remove any visibility away from my
OA work, quite the contrary. So, I am all for someone working hard to
promote my work while making a few coins out of this effort. I never
expected to make money from a research article in the first place.

As for "owners of rights", i.e. publishers after the transfer of 
rights
customary in publishing contracts, that is another matter. This is a
business, and little else. Publishers are anything you want except
researchers (with few exceptions, and I distinguish carefully publishers
from editors here).
-- 

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le lundi 01 septembre 2014 à 13:40 +0100, Prof. T.D. Wilson a écrit :
> The issue has not just arisen.  There was a debate about it on this
> forum when the idea of a SPARC award of some kind was mooted.  I and
> others pointed out that the CC BY criterion would be a licence for
> others to benefit financially from OA without any recompense to the
> copyright holder.  I haven't seen much since about that award, perhaps
> it died the death?
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Wilson
> 
> 
> 
> On 1 September 2014 09:40, Richard Poynder
> <richard.poynder AT cantab.net> wrote:
> 
>         Paul Royster is proud of what he has achieved with his
>         institutional repository. Currently, it contains 73,000
>         full-text items, of which more than 60,000 are freely
>         accessible to the world. This, says Royster, makes it the
>         second largest institutional repository in the US, and it
>         receives around 500,000 downloads per month, with around 30%
>         of those going to international users.
>         
>          
>         
>         Unsurprisingly, Royster always assumed that he was in the
>         vanguard of the OA movement, and that fellow OA advocates
>         attached considerable value to the work he was doing.
>         
>          
>         
>         All this changed in 2012, when he attended an open access
>         meeting organised by SPARC in Kansas City. At that meeting, he
>         says, he was startled to hear SPARC announce to delegates that
>         henceforth the sine qua non of open access is that a work has
>         to be made available with a CC BY licence or equivalent
>         attached.
>         
>          
>         
>         After the meeting Royster sought to clarify the situation with
>         SPARC, explaining the problems that its insistence on CC BY
>         presented for repository managers like him, since it is
>         generally not possible to make self-archived works available
>         on a CC BY basis (not least because the copyright will
>         invariably have been assigned to a publisher). Unfortunately,
>         he says, his concerns fell on deaf ears.
>         
>          
>         
>         The only conclusion Royster could reach is that the OA
>         movement no longer views what he is doing as open access. As
>         he puts it, “[O]ur work in promulgating Green OA (which
>         normally does not convey re-use rights) and our free-access
>         publishing under non-exclusive permission-to-publish (i.e.,
>         non-CC) agreements was henceforth disqualified.”
>         
>          
>         
>         If correct, what is striking here is the implication that
>         institutional repositories can no longer claim to be providing
>         open access.
>         
>          
>         
>         In fact, if one refers to the most frequently cited
>         definitions of open access one discovers that what SPARC told
>         Royster would seem to be in order. Although it was written
>         before the Creative Commons licences were released, for
>         instance, the definition of open access authored by those who
>         launched the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) in 2001
>         clearly seems to describe the same terms as those expressed in
>         the CC BY licence.
>         
>          
>         
>         What this means, of course, is that green OA does not meet the
>         requirements of the BOAI — even though BOAI cited green OA as
>         one of its “complementary strategies” for achieving open
>         access.
>         
>          
>         
>         Since most of the OA movement’s claimed successes are green
>         successes this is particularly ironic. But given this, is it
>         not pure pedantry to worry about what appears to be a logical
>         inconsistency at the heart of the OA movement? No, not in
>         light of the growing insistence that only CC BY will do. If
>         nothing else, it is alienating some of the movement’s best
>         allies — people like Paul Royster for instance.  
>         
>          
>         
>         “I no longer call or think of myself as an advocate for ‘open
>         access,’ since the specific definition of that term excludes
>         most of what we do in our repository,” says Royster. “I used
>         to think the term meant ‘free to access, download, and store
>         without charge, registration, log-in, etc.,’ but I have been
>         disabused of that notion.”
>         
>          
>         
>         For that reason, he says, “My current attitude regarding OA is
>         to step away and leave it alone; it does some good, despite
>         what I see as its feet of clay. I am not ‘against’ it, but I
>         don't feel inspired to promote a cause that makes the
>         repositories second-class members.”
>         
>          
>         
>         How could this strange state of affairs have arisen? And why
>         has it only really become an issue now, over a decade after
>         the BOAI definition was penned? 
>         
>          
>         
>         More here:
>         
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/the-open-access-interviews-paul-royster.html
>         
>          
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         --
>         To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
>         http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> T.D. Wilson, PhD (Sheffield), PhD, h.c.(Gothenburg), PhD,
> h.c.(Murcia),
> 
> Professor Emeritus, University of Sheffield
> 
> Publisher and Editor in Chief: Information Research
> http://informationr.net/ir/
> E-mail: t.d.wilson AT shef.ac.uk
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
>         --      
> To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum


ATTACHMENT: message.html!

-- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .