From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 10:48:24 -0400

It seems to me that, in definitional discussions, we should clearly
distinguish between ultimate objectives and intermediate steps. The
definitions crafted back in 2001-3 were certainly imperfect, if only
because much had yet to be understood and discovered at that time.
Yet, they did include essential items that we should not abandon. And
shifting ground in mid-course does not appear altogether wise to me.
Yet, they defined a clear objective, a vision, a dream perhaps. And,
as such, they are just fine. But an objective, a vision, or a dream,
is not a reality.

At the same time, I understand Stevan's points very well and, like
him, get concerned when I see people all tangled up in definitions
rather than pushing for open access, step by step.

As a result, I would suggest keeping the original definitions, but
treat them as if they were somewhat analogous to the North that a
compass points to: we want to move in some direction related to the
North, but we know that the North given by the compass is not entirely
accurate, and we know that it is an ultimate end point that cannot be
reached without many detours, if only because we meet obstacles. In
short, we need to have some general, fixed reference, and then we
progress as best we can in the direction we want.

In short, we should treat the original definitions as a strategic
vision, but not let the definitions block our tactical steps. From a
strategic perspective, a tactical move will appear imperfect and
incomplete. However, this is not a very useful way to judge the
tactical step. Instead, the strategist should aim the following kind
of judgement: is a particular tactical step susceptible of impeding
further steps in the (more or less) right direction? If it is, then,
it is time to stop, reconsider, and modify. If not, let us accept it,
even if it appears far from perfection.

And I would push the argument just a little further by reminding
Stevan (and perhaps some others) that the idea of a perfect tactical
schedule is as elusive as the perfect objective. Having the vision for
perfect tactics may usefully inform decision-making in concrete
situations, but it should not be mistaken for absolute necessity and
it cannot justify rigid recommendations. The "terrain" offered by
various disciplines, countries and institutions is much too varied to
permit a single approach to every situation.

In short, confusing strategic visions with tactical steps is a
complicated way of saying that perfection can be the enemy of the
good.
--

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le mardi 02 septembre 2014 à 12:19 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

What OA Needs Is More Action, Not More Definition

For the record: I renounce (and have long renounced) the original 2002
BOAI (and BBB) definition of Open Access(OA) (even though I was one of
the original co-drafters and co-signers of BOAI) in favour of its 2008
revision (sic) as Gratis OA (free online access) and Libre OA (free
online access plus certain re-use rights, e.g., CC-BY).

The original BOAI definition was improvised. Over a decade of
subsequent evidence, experience and reflection have now made it clear
that this first approximation in 2002 was needlessly over-reaching and
(insofar as Green OA self-archiving was concerned) incoherent (except
if we were prepared to declare almost all Green OA — which was and
still is by far the largest and most reachable body of OA — as not
being OA!). The original BOAI/BBB definition has since also become an
obstacle to the growth of (Green, Gratis) OA as well as a point of
counterproductive schism and formalism in the OA movement that have
not been to the benefit of OA (but to the benefit of the opponents of
OA, or to the publishers that want to ensure -- via Green OA embargoes
-- that the only path to OA should be one that preserves their current
revenue streams: Fool's Gold OA).

I would like to agree with Richard Poynder that OA needs some sort of
"authoritative" organization -- but of whom should that authoritative
organization consist? My inclination is that it should be the
providers and users of the OA research itself, namely peer-reviewed
journal article authors, their institutions and their funders. Their
“definition” of OA would certainly be authoritative.

Let me close by emphasizing that I too see Libre OA as desirable and
inevitable. But my belief (and it has plenty of supporting evidence)
is that the only way to get to Libre OA is for all institutions and
funders to mandate (and provide) Gratis Green OA first — not to
quibble or squabble about the BOAI/BBB “definition” of OA, or their
favorite flavours of Libre OA licenses.

My only difference with Paul Royster is that the primary target for OA
is peer-reviewed journal articles, and for that it is not just
repositories that are needed, but Green OA mandates from authors’
institutions and funders.

P.S. To forestall yet another round of definitional wrangling: Even an
effective Gratis Green OA mandate requires some compromises, namely,
if authors elect to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, they
need merely deposit the final, refereed, revised draft in their
institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication
-- and set the access as "restricted access" instead of OA during the
(allowable) embargo. The repository's automated email copy-request
Button will allow any user to request and any author to provide a
single copy for research purposes during the embargo with one click
each. (We call this compromise "Almost-OA." It is a workaround for the
40% of journals that embargo Gratis Green OA; and this too is a
necessary first step on the road to 100% immediate Green Gratis OA and
onward. I hope no one will now call for a formal definition of
"Almost-OA" before we can take action on mandating OA...)