From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 02:18:25 +0000 I can¹t quite tell whether Jean-Claude is disagreeing with my analysis of the quotation, or agreeing with it and saying that it¹s quite obviously the only possible conclusion. But I¹d still like to hear from someone from COAR. If Jean-Claude speaks for the OA movement as a whole in saying that its purpose is (among other things) to "(abolish) toll access entirely," then I guess my question should be an uncontroversial one. As I said, that¹s just fine ‹ but let¹s not be coy about it. (By the way, I understand COAR¹s use of the term "open availability" to include CC-BY license terms or the equivalent, but if that¹s not correct hopefully someone from COAR will clarify.) --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah [log in to unmask] On 6/1/15, 6:00 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >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 COAR¹s Statement Against Elsevier¹s Sharing Policy >stands out to me in particular: > >³Any 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.² > >This is quite a remarkable statement ‹ what¹s 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, that¹s fine, but it seems >like we shouldn¹t 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]