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