From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:16:03 +0400

Hi All

David's experience is quite common.  Last year I published an article
(in an open access journal, naturally :-), in which I had surveyed
editors of NON open access journals.  One of the editors wrote: "Our
journal operates an open access policy where authors from subscribing
institutions are entitled to free open access publication."

There's still a long way to go.

Regards

Ken

------

Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman
E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education
____/\\/********\\/\\____




On 24 December 2011 07:18, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:19:47 +0000
>
>
> Of course there is confusion.  I was at a meeting once where an editor
> proudly stated that she was fully signed-up to the principles of open
> access and the journal she edited was open access - the papers were
> freely available to all readers at subscribing institutions!  I'm not
> sure threatening her with trademark infringement would have helped.
>
> This and Joe's example are cases of people wanting 'open access' to
> mean what they want it to mean.  For me there is a perfectly good
> working definition in Budapest.  Mike and I are working with this
> definition - Joe want to redefine the term.  That's fine, language
> evolves all the time.  But those of us who don't think we need a
> redefinition are going to continue to hark back to Budapest.
>
> David
>
> On 23 Dec 2011, at 03:38, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:04:44 -0800
> >
> > Of course they are a special case.
> >
> > An illustration. I happened upon a publishing service that was proudly
> > hailed as open access.  Sounds great.  How is it financed? I asked.
> > An arrangement had been made between an educational institution and a
> > commercial company.  The institution had materials it wanted digitized
> > and made available as a Web service.  The commercial company undertook
> > to handle the technical work.  The institution got access to the
> > material at no charge.  Hence "open access." But the commercial
> > company then had the right to market the material to other
> > institutions for a fee.
> >
> > Now, how can we expect that institution to understand that they are
> > not familiar with the rarefied atmosphere of the three B's?
> >
> > If you want no ambiguity, trademark the term.  Intellectual property
> > helps everybody.
> >
> > Joe Esposito