LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  June 2015

LIBLICENSE-L June 2015

Subject:

Re: Question about the COAR statement

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:00:31 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (53 lines)

From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 19:47:28 +0000

I do not think Rick Anderson's analysis of the quotation from COAR to
be correct.

The quoted part is simply a description of the consequences linked
with delayed availability. One may agree or not agree with this
description, but, whatever the adopted attitude, one must deal with it
as a fact. If one disagrees with it, one ought to demonstrate,
preferably empirically, why he/she disagrees. From my perspective, the
statement appears common-sensically obvious: if access is delayed
and/or restricted, then research will be hampered by such constraints
(at least a few researcher will be slowed down by such constraints).
And public access to research will also be more difficult. Denying
this is sophistry.

The quoted COAR statement does not deal with the issue of CC-by.
Furthermore, no CC licence addresses the issue of embargoes.

Incidentally, Rick Anderson might remember that the Open Access
movement is about abolishing toll access entirely (plus a few other
things). This has been publicly the case since at least 2002. So, what
is new here?

Jean-Claude Guédon

________________________________________
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:17:13 +0000

One sentence in COAR’s Statement Against Elsevier’s Sharing Policy
stands out to me in particular:

“Any delay in the open availability of research articles curtails
scientific progress and places unnecessary constraints on delivering
the benefits of research back to the public.”

This is quite a remarkable statement — what’s it saying is that any
access model that involves anything less than a) immediate and
universal free access under b) any terms other than CC BY is
unacceptable. In practice, this would seem to be a call for the
abolishment of toll access entirely. If so, that’s fine, but it seems
like we shouldn’t be coy about it — can anyone from COAR clarify
whether this was the intent of the language in question? And if not,
then was this language included by accident?

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1