From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:58:07 +0100

Jeffrey,

Open Access is a quality of an article, not necessarilly a journal or
publisher (though if all articles in a given journal or published by a
given publisher are open, then they can of course colloquially be
called 'open access' entities —
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm)
In the case of Ken's journal, it seems the © statement applies to the
design of the site itself, and not the articles.(@ Ken, could you
confirm?)
Ken's journal does lack enough clarity about the OA status of the
papers, and I would advise him to state very clearly under what
licence the articles are published, as for now it seems they are just
free to readers ('gratis', in Harnad terms) and not open access as
defined under the BOAI definition (they could be, but it's not
explicit).

Claiming © for the site design can perfectly coexist with
BOAI-compliant open access to articles, as long as the latter is made
explicit and clear.

Jan Velterop


On 22 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: "Beall, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:01:17 -0700

Ken:

I have a comment about the journal you edit, the Internet Journal of
Medical Education. [http://ispub.com/IJME ]

At the bottom of every page of every article in your journal, there is
a copyright statement, like this: "© 2013 Internet Scientific
Publications, LLC. All rights reserved."

Now, the BOAI definition of open-access states, "By 'open access' to
this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet,
permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print,
search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for
indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other
lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other
than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself."

Therefore, your journal, because it has a strong copyright statement
on every page, does not meet the definition of OA and in ten years,
unless it changes its policies, will still not be an OA journal by
definition.

Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
[log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:21:43 +0400

Hi All

As the Gregorian calendar prepares to flip over to 2014, I'd like to
get the opinions of the people on this list regarding open access in
the next decade.

In 10 years, or less, when online open access academic journal
articles vastly outnumber toll-access academic journal articles, what
do you think will be the excuses of those who fought so strongly
against it?

I'm sure there will be many who will say things like "We always knew
it was the way of the future; we were simply concerned about quality
," but I know that others will be far more creative than that.

So, it would be interesting to gather some predicted excuses now, and
see how many of them are used in the next decades.

On the other hand, if you think this prediction about open cccess is
baloney, feel free to rip into it.

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 ____/\\/********\\/\\____