From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:24:15 +0200 While it is commendable that there is an attempt to describe the varieties of OA, it would be helpful if the term "closed access" be subjected to a similar analysis. I am not aware of any closed documents, unless white papers commissioned by the CIA are of this variety. There is another category of document as well, which I would term "appropriate access." This is the situation for most scholarly publishing today. Joe Esposito On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 1:10 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Andrea Higginbotham <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:54:18 -0400 > > Not all Open Access is created equal. To move beyond the seemingly > simple question of “Is it Open Access?” PLoS, SPARC and OASPA have > collaborated to develop a resource called “HowOpenIsIt?” This resource > identifies the core components of open access (OA) and how they are > implemented across the spectrum between "Open Access" and "Closed > Access". We recognize there are philosophical disagreements regarding > OA and this resource will not resolve those differences. > > We are seeking input on the accuracy and completeness of how OA is > defined in this guide. Download the open review draft and provide > feedback below in the comment form on SPARC's website: > http://bit.ly/Qi3NVP. In its final form, this guide will provide an > easily understandable, comprehensive, and quantifiable resource to > help authors make informed decisions on where to publish based on > publisher policies. > > With this guide we aim to provide greater clarity regarding its > definition and components. All suggestions will be considered and a > final version will be released during Open Access Week (October 22 > -28, 2012). The comment period will close on Monday, October 8, at > 5:00pm (EST). > > All best, > > Andrea > > > Andrea Brusca Higginbotham > Communications Manager, SPARC > Washington, DC 20036 > [log in to unmask] > www.arl.org/sparc