<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">FYI.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><b>Hilton Gibson</b></div>
<div>Ubuntu Linux Systems Administrator</div><div>JS Gericke Library</div><div>Room 1025D</div><div>Stellenbosch University</div><div>Private Bag X5036</div><div>Stellenbosch</div><div>7599</div><div>South Africa</div><div>
<br></div><div>Tel: +27 21 808 4100 | Cell: +27 84 646 4758</div><div><a href="http://scholar.sun.ac.za" target="_blank">http://scholar.sun.ac.za</a></div><div><a href="http://bit.ly/goodir" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/goodir</a></div>
<div><a href="http://library.sun.ac.za" target="_blank">http://library.sun.ac.za</a></div><div><a href="http://za.linkedin.com/in/hiltongibson" target="_blank">http://za.linkedin.com/in/hiltongibson</a></div></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Stevan Harnad</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
Date: 30 May 2014 16:27<br>Subject: [GOAL] Re: Request-Copy Button Now Native to DSpace<br>To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <<a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</a>><br><br>
<br><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Rory Litwin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rlitwin@gmail.com" target="_blank">rlitwin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:</div><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">the working assumption is that depositing a work in an institutional archive means making it freely accessible on the web for immediate download.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not if the funder or institution allows publisher embargoes (<i>as they all do</i>).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">That means that anyone who wants to access it (given access to the internet) can do so.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> Anyone can access it if the author makes it OA. But not if the author does not deposit it (which is what the mandates are for); nor if the publisher embargoes OA (and the author, institution or funder complies).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Please separate the ideology from the pragmatics. Immediate-deposit mandates plus the Button are the best we can do whenever the author does not make the deposit immediately OA of his own accord, and whenever the institution or funder does not mandate immediate OA (as none does).</div>
<div><br></div><div>The reality is that most funders and institutions are mandating <i>delayed OA</i> -- i.e., <i>deposit only after the publisher embargo has elapsed</i>. That gives much less access than requiring immediate deposit and using the Button during any allowable embargo (even if not every author responds to the Button!).</div>
<div><br></div><div>To the logic and the pragmatic constraints here, you need to ask yourself the following questions:</div><div><br></div><div>(1) Are you arguing for delayed-deposit mandates, after the embargo elapses, instead of immediate-deposit mandates and the Button?</div>
<div><br></div><div>(2) If so, why? since both types of mandates provide exactly the same OA (after the embargo), but the immediate-deposit mandate + Button provides even more access during the embargo.</div><div><br></div>
<div>(3) Or are you arguing against Green OA mandates altogether? In which case what alternative do you propose? Gold OA mandates requiring authors to give up journal choice based on quality and track record and instead pick journals based on their economic model -- and pay extra for it too (while their institutions continue to have to pay for subscriptions for the journals they can no longer publish in, but that their users still need to be able to access because other authors are still publishing in them)?</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">the button gives authors the option not to fulfill a request. I think [it's] is right that that doesn't fulfill an OA mandate; it effectively gives authors control of their own works, which is not the same thing.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is not the Button that prevents authors from making their papers immediately OA, or prevents institutions and funders from mandating immediate OA: It is <i>publisher OA embargoes</i>.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">If an author has the option to deny someone access to a work, it can't be called open access.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>If there were no publisher OA embargoes (or if researchers, institutions and funders had the good sense to ignore them) then institutions and funders could mandate immediate OA, and authors would happily provide immediate OA. (Having published their research for those users whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the journal in which it was published, authors have no motivation whatsoever to deny access to nonsubscribers! What makes some authors fail to do their Button click is sometimes incomprehension of the Button and sometimes laziness.)</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Stevan argues that there will always be some method of providing access and that it will always be to some degree inefficient.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Nothing of the sort! I am working to make Green OA mandates more effective and universally adopted in order to provide as much access as possible now, and to hasten the eventual well-deserved demise of all publisher OA embargoes.</div>
<div><br></div><div>You should ask yourself whether you have a better idea (and evidence that it works) rather than just focussing on authors who don't press the Button during the embargo...</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">I think that argument ignores the working assumption that an institutional archive implies putting a work on a website where it can be downloaded immediately, and ignores the fact that the button gives authors the ability (if not the right) to refuse access.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>To repeat: <i>It is publisher embargoes that are denying access, not authors</i>; And it is because of publisher embargoes that institutions and funders do not require their authors to provide immediate OA. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Please set aside ideology and "the (out-of-reach) best" and consider reality, pragmatics and "the (reachable) better" (unless you have another idea).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">If an author is required to give access to his works by the OA mandate in place, why use a system that makes it easy for him or her to fail to do this by not taking action in a reasonable time-frame, when it is trivially easy simply to put the work online?</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I will not repeat it again, Rory. You have not understood the nature of actual OA mandates today, the constraints on them, and what they do and don't, can and can't, provide. Instead you have focussed on what the Button cannot do, not realizing that with the Button there is more potential access than with any other mandate.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div><b> Stevan Harnad</b></div></font></span></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></div><br></div>