Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:30:53 +0100

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Sally Morris wrote:

> I think part of the problem may be that we are considering various different
> 'axes' in trying to define 'Open Access':
> 1) Whether or not it's free to access (not, we should remember, a
> requirement of OAI!).

OAI is not the relevant "OA" in this, BOAI is. OAI is merely a
digital interoperability protocol; it is BOAI that is concerned with

> 2) If it is free to access, how the costs are covered

Whose costs, and costs of what?

There is BOAI-1, which is author/institution self-archiving
of their own published articles (published in toll-access journals).
The authors and their institutions cover their own (negligible)
self-archiving costs and the toll-access publishers carry on as before,
covering costs out of the access-tolls.

Then there is BOAI-2, which is open-access journal publishing. Open
access journals have their own cost-recovery models.

> 3) Whether it is 'public domain' (or some variant thereof) or not

What is the "it" that is public domain? Certainly not researchers'
articles, whether published in toll-access journals or open-access

> 4) Whether OAI-compliant metadata is exposed

OAI-compliance pertains to whether the (full-text)
access is efficient, not to whether it is toll-free.

> 5) Whether the item and/or its metadata are deposited in certain
> types of databases (this last seems to me supremely irrelevant)

I agree it's irrelevant, if by "certain type" you mean Eprints
vs. DSpace. It's certainly not irrelevant whether the item (full-text)
is deposited in a database *at all*, for if it is not deposited in an
open access database of *some* type, it is not open access.

Whether that database type is institutional and distributed, disciplinary
and central, or the toll-free access database of an open-access or a
toll-access publisher is an implementational and strategic matter. And
whether or not that database is OAI-compliant is a matter of functionality
and efficiency (OAI-compliant databases greatly prefereed!).

> If what we're seeking to achieve is the widest possible access for readers,
> then only 1 is vital, though 4 is also helpful.

Agreed. But 1 (toll-free access) presupposes 5 (presence in an
open-access database) too.

> However, whether this will actually happen must depend, as Stevan keeps
> pointing out, on author behaviour.

Depends on the referent for "this": BOAI-1 or BOAI-2? BOAI-1
(self-archiving) depends only on author behaviour. BOAI-2 (open-access
publishing) depends on the behaviours of many different parties: (1)
publishers (are they willing to found new OA journals, or convert from
TA to OA publishing?), (2) authors (are they willing to submit to new OA
journals rather than their established TA journals?), and (3) users (will
they read and cite the articles in the new OA journals as much as the ones
in the established TA journals?). OA definitely has the edge on visibility
and accessibility, but OA journals have an initial handicap for being new.

> Unless free access (plus or minus all
> the rest) is demonstrably better at achieving the things that motivate
> authors - ultimately career progression, funding (via such intermediates as
> citation) - there is no reason why they should change;

Free access is demonstrably better, so it is only the empirical facts about
its being better that need to be conveyed to the research community:
It is not only an empirical finding, hover, but an a-priori logical
fact, that anything that blocks research access also blocks research
impact. It is merely taking a while for this token to drop in the research
community's collective mind.

> they are no more altruistic than the rest of us.

No one is calling for altruism. Self-archiving is an appeal to
researchers' self-interest:

    Harnad, S. (2003) Self-Archive Unto Others as Ye Would Have
    Them Self-Archive Unto You. The Australian Higher Education

    Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003)
    Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint
    Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment
    Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne.

    Harnad, S. (2003) Measuring and Maximising UK Research
    Impact. Times Higher Education Supplement. Friday, June 6 2003.

    Harnad, S. (2003) Maximising Research Impact Through Self-Archiving.

> It's my view that what we should be doing
> is trying to gather some valid evidence one way or the other.

We're working on it!

    "How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research"

Stevan Harnad

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):

Discussion can be posted to:
Received on Thu Aug 14 2003 - 17:30:53 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:02 GMT