From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:24:15 +0200

While it is commendable that there is an attempt to describe the
varieties of OA, it would be helpful if the term "closed access" be
subjected to a similar analysis.  I am not aware of any closed
documents, unless white papers commissioned by the CIA are of this
variety.  There is another category of document as well, which I would
term "appropriate access."  This is the situation for most scholarly
publishing today.

Joe Esposito

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:10 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Andrea Higginbotham <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:54:18 -0400
>
> Not all Open Access is created equal. To move beyond the seemingly
> simple question of “Is it Open Access?” PLoS, SPARC and OASPA have
> collaborated to develop a resource called “HowOpenIsIt?” This resource
> identifies the core components of open access (OA) and how they are
> implemented across the spectrum between "Open Access" and "Closed
> Access". We recognize there are philosophical disagreements regarding
> OA and this resource will not resolve those differences.
>
> We are seeking input on the accuracy and completeness of how OA is
> defined in this guide. Download the open review draft and provide
> feedback below in the comment form on SPARC's website:
> http://bit.ly/Qi3NVP. In its final form, this guide will provide an
> easily understandable, comprehensive, and quantifiable resource to
> help authors make informed decisions on where to publish based on
> publisher policies.
>
> With this guide we aim to provide greater clarity regarding its
> definition and components. All suggestions will be considered and a
> final version will be released during Open Access Week (October 22
> -28, 2012). The comment period will close on Monday, October 8, at
> 5:00pm (EST).
>
> All best,
>
> Andrea
>
>
> Andrea Brusca Higginbotham
> Communications Manager, SPARC
> Washington, DC 20036
> [log in to unmask]
> www.arl.org/sparc