From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 07:43:00 +0000
Sandy,
The term Open Access is used in various 'domains', such as open access
to land, open access to telecommunications networks, open access to
government, etc.
However, since this thread is about journals, it is only natural to
discuss the notion of open access and its consequences in the context
of journals, methinks. The BOAI addressed specifically journals, and
not even all journals, but the peer-reviewed research journals that
are the main channel of formal communication in most of the sciences.
Even review journals and the magazine content of some high-profile
scientific periodicals were not (and are not) regarded as relevant to
the drive to achieve OA to research articles.
So yes, from its inception the BOAI definition of OA was 'divorced',
as you put it, from any other forms of open access. So if any other
forms of publishing, such as monographs, are brought into the
discussion about predatory OA journals, then the expectation is
entirely justified that those forms of publishing are seen as
sufficiently similar to peer-reviewed journals and therefore fall
under the same definition of OA as journals and discussed accordingly.
If not, they are off-topic in this thread, which, again, is about OA
journals.
There may well be a good reason to start a separate discussion thread
about OA in monographs, review journals, textbooks, etc. All very
worthwhile, but I have little to say about those, and I am not very
likely to join such a discussion.
Jan Velterop
Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEO
Academic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge)
Skype: Villavelius
Email: [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
On 20 Mar 2012, at 23:16, LIBLICENSE wrote:
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:14:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Predatory OA Journals in CHE
Why should the BOAI definition be given this exalted status, since it
was written narrowly in application to STM journal articles and never
even refers to anything else? Your desire to extend it needs
justification, not a stipulation that this narrowly focused definition
should be given pride of place in the development of OA.
Sandy Thatcher
At 10:50 AM +0100 3/19/12, Jan Velterop wrote:
Sandy,
First of all, this thread is called "Predatory OA Journals" and it is
in the context of OA journals, not monographs, that I made my
comments.
Secondly, not just for journal articles, but also for monographs, the
term OA justifiably raises the expectation that the work is indeed
Open Access as it was originally defined (the Budapest OA Initiative)
and if that is not the case, then labelling a work OA may well be seen
as misleading by the reader.
That doesn't and shouldn't mean that steps to make monographs freely
accessible are useless. But unless they are open access in the sense
intended in the Budapest OA Initiative, which includes reuse, even
commercial, and which is best captured in the CC-BY licence, they
should be abundantly clear about what rights a reader has, lest their
'OA' label is read and interpreted as BOAI-compliant OA.
Jan Velterop
Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEO
Academic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge)
Skype: Villavelius
Email: [log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
On 19 Mar 2012, at 02:47, LIBLICENSE wrote:
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:19:35 -0500
But, as I've said here before, if you take that approach and rule out
anything that is not strictly compliant with the BOAI definition, then
you are right away divorcing the OA movement from practically every OA
monograph publishing program that currently exists. Is that a price
you really want to pay for OA purism? Think about the wider
consequences of what you are recommending here....
Sandy Thatcher
From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 07:25:44 +0000
Well, if the author retains commercial rights, the 'open access' in
question is not BOAI-compliant, and it is about time to stop calling
anything Open Access that is not covered by CC-BY, CC-zero, or
equivalent. Open Access is well-defined in the Budapest Open Access
Initiative and stretching the notion to include all manner of
pseudo-OA causes the problems and anxieties Sandy Thatcher points to.
Jan Velterop
|
