On 14-Mar-05, at 6:32 AM, Leslie Chan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Leslie Chan wrote:
>>
> The real important question
> then is, how would the proposed update of BOAI definition affect
> author's
> self-archiving behaviour. If adding "immediate and permanent" would
> hasten
> author self-archiving, then I would be in favour. But I can't see how.
In my opinion, a broader definition could be more helpful in
encouraging open access than a narrower one. For example, when we are
encouraging authors to self-archive, as Leslie points out as well, it
is very helpful to be able to encourage them to self-archive all their
papers, not just the latest ones. Another problem with defining OA as
"immediate on publication" is that this could be perceived as excluding
OA of the preprint variety, and/or open access publication of materials
such as datasets, which may not have been formally published in the
past. Also, preservation is an important issue in regards to any kinds
of publication, whether toll or open access, one that is not completely
solved by anyone. Mixing up or conflating this with OA could slow
down the process of moving to OA.
>
>
> I just noticed Barbara Kirsop's reply to this tread. I fully concur
> with her
> that we should be concentrating on filling OA archives and encouraging
> OA
> journals instead of debating the "luxury" add-ons.
My thoughts exactly, although Stevan has brought up an important point
here. We do need to clearly delineate the goal (all research
immediately, permanently, and openly accessible), while at the same
time recognizing that almost all steps towards OA at present are only
partial measures, which, imperfect though they are, need our support
and encouragement.
cheers,
Heather G. Morrison
Project Coordinator
BC Electronic Library Network
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phone: 604-268-7001
Fax: 604-291-3023
Email: heatherm_at_eln.bc.ca
Web:
http://www.eln.bc.ca
Received on Mon Mar 14 2005 - 16:26:32 GMT