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...)