I fully agree with both Peter and Stevan on this point, which may weaken Poynder's allegation about the OA community...
Moreover, by Varmus' own admission, if the datable is searchable, then it qualifies as OA. OAI-PMH does that to repositories where individuals can self-archive.
This said, if people were to self-archive in small, isolated, web sites that do not obey OAI-PMH, it would be pretty invisible and, as such, may not really qualify as OA. In this situation, venue could indeed be relevant, but only in that situation. And it is a very minor problem anyway.
I would also like to react to Poynder's characterization of the debate within the OA community. From my perspective, the issue is not to see which road is best. I believe many in the OA community feel likewise. So long as either of the two roads achieves positive results for OA, I am for it.
My point has always been to see how we could make both roads work better. I have even strongly suggested we should try to make the two strategies converge, for example by paying attention to their respective branding capacity. This is particularly important for repositories as journals already brand. But what has been branded once can be branded twice (for example through a journal and then through a prize). Therefore, imagining how repositories can be organized to brand and re-brand is not difficult.
-------- Message d'origine--------
De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad
Date: mer. 07/06/2006 17:34
Objet : Harold Varmus: "Self-Archiving is Not Open Access"
If you wonder why there is internecine squabbling within the Open
Access (OA) Community, you need go no further than Richard Poynder's
latest OA interview (a skillful, revealing elicitation, as always),
this time of Nobel Laureate and PLoS co-founder, Harold Varmus:
"[T]here has been a long-standing and vigorous debate within the OA
movement about the respective merits of the so-called Green and Gold
roads. The debate seems to revolve around the issue of whether it
is better for OA advocates to put all their energy into the creation
of new open access journals, or to focus on lobbying research funders
and governments to require researchers to self-archive the papers
they have published in subscription journals. What are your views
on that debate?"
"My views are very clear: at this point self-archiving is not Open
Access. One of the important components of the definition of
Open Access that we have all agreed on is that research information
should be placed in a searchable database. Right now the only way
to be confident that you can do that effectively is by using a large
public digital library like PubMed Central."
I am spared having to respond (yet again) to this egregious nonsense by
Peter Suber's spare reply in Open Access News:
"Varmus is wrong to say that self-archiving is not OA. OA is a kind
of access, not a kind of venue, and 'OA repositories' deliver this
kind of access as well as 'OA journals', and distributed repositories
deliver it as well as central repositories. Repositories certainly
count as 'searchable databases'."
To see what definition of Open Access "we have all agreed on," please see the BOAI
definition of OA, first coined by the BOAI (Peter Suber, principal drafter), 2001:
Nor is the (profound) disagreement about the definition of OA
merely semiological quibbling. The difference is strategic,
and it has profound practical implications for OA (sic), and
how soon we manage to reach it. Harold's continuing confusions
about (what was eventually dubbed) OA began early on (1999)
but certainly not as early as OA itself began, which was in the 1980's,
with computer scientists self-archiving their papers in Anonymous FTP
Archives. The rest of the road to the optimal and inevitable outcome
is history still in the making (an outcome that some OA advocates are
hastening and facilitating; others, alas, rather less than they might
if they listened a little more attentively and reflected a bit more:
The Midas Touch can be the Kiss of Death sometimes...)
Harnad, S. (2006) Opening Access by Overcoming Zeno's Paralysis. To
appear in: Jacobs, N., (Ed) Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical
and Economic Aspects. Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited, Chapter 8.
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005)
is available at:
To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
Post discussion to:
UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:
UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when
a suitable one exists.
in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
in your institutional repository.
Received on Thu Jun 08 2006 - 04:30:31 BST