Re: Definition of Open Access

From: Matthew Cockerill <matt_at_BIOMEDCENTRAL.COM>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 07:19:59 +0100

The Budapest meeting no doubt helped the term 'open access' to
achieve wide currency, and provided a definition for it.

But, for what it's worth, the Internet Archive confirms that the term
open access was already being used in early 2001 by BioMed Central
(amongst others?) to describe:
(a) journals
(b) PubMed Central

I'm with Humpty Dumpty on this one though:


On 30 Jun 2006, at 0:15, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> Rick Anderson is unhappy with "my" definition of OA:
>>>>> SH:
>>>>> OA means free online access to published, peer-reviewed journal
>>>>> articles.
>>>> RA:
>>>> No, Stevan, that's _your_ definition of OA. It is by no means the
>>>> only one.
>>> SH:
>>> No, Rick, that's the BOAI definition, and that was where the
>>> word OA was coined:
>> RA:
>> Actually, the Barcelona definition departs significantly from
>> Stevan's.
>> It does not require content to be either peer-reviewed or formally
>> published in order for it to be considered OA, nor does it share
>> Stevan's narrow focus on self-archiving. More significantly, the
>> definition is itself not the only one.
> To repeat, the term "Open Access" was introduced into the language
> between December 2001 and February 2002 by the co-drafters of the
> Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) (Peter Suber, principal
> drafter).
> Language being what it is, once coined, the term was of course free
> to take on any other meaning anyone wished to assign to it, but
> there is much to be said for the co-drafters' original intention
> and initiative: It was, after all, what launched the Open Access
> movement.
This email has been scanned by Postini.
For more information please visit
Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 12:53:32 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:23 GMT