Value-Neutral Names Needed for the Two Forms of OA

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 23:07:59 -0400

    The Two Forms of OA Have Been Defined: They Now Need
    Value-Neutral Names



      SUMMARY: Our joint statement with Peter Suber noted that
      both price-barrier-free access and
      permission-barrier-free access are indeed forms of Open
      Access (OA) and that virtually all Green OA and much of
      Gold OA today is just price-barrier-free OA, although we
      both agree that permission-barrier-free OA is the
      ultimate desideratum. What we had not anticipated was
      that if price-barrier-free OA were actually named by its
      logical condition as "Weak OA" (i.e., the necessary
      condition for permission-barrier-free OA) then that would
      create difficulties for those who are working hard toward
      the universal adoption of the mandates to provide
      price-barrier-free OA (Green OA self-archiving mandates)
      that are only now beginning to grow and flourish. So we
      are looking for a shorthand or stand-in for
      "price-barrier-free OA" and "permission-barrier-free OA"
      that will convey the distinction without any pejorative
      connotations for either form of OA. The two forms of OA
      stand defined, explicitly and logically. They are now in
      need of value-neutral names (e.g., BASIC vs. FULL OA).



"Weak/Strong" marks the logical distinction between two forms of OA:
price-barrier-free access is anecessary condition for
permission-barrier-free access, and permission-barrier-free access is
a sufficient condition for price-barrier-free access. That is the
logic of weak vs. strong conditions.

But since Peter Suber and I posted the distinction, noting
that both price-barrier-free access and permission-barrier-free
access are indeed Open Access (OA), many of our colleagues have been
contacting us to express serious concern about the unintended
pejorative connotations of "weak." 

As a consequence, to avoid this unanticipated and inadvertent bias,
the two types of OA cannot be named by the logical conditions (weak
and strong) that define them. We soon hope to announce a more
transparent, unbiased pair of names. Current candidates include:
      Transparent, self-explanatory descriptors:
            USE OA vs. RE-USE OA
            READ OA vs. READ-WRITE OA
            PRICE OA vs. PERMISSION OA

      Generic descriptors:
            BASIC or GENERIC or CORE OA vs. EXTENDED or
            EXTENSIBLE or FULL OA
            SOFT OA vs. HARD OA
            EASY OA vs. HARD OA

(My own sense it that the consensus is tending toward BASIC vs. FULL
OA.)

The ultimate choice of names matters far less than ensuring that the
unintended connotations of "weak" cannot be exploited by the
opponents of OA, or by the partisans of one of the forms of OA to the
detriment of the other. Nor should mandating "weak OA" be discouraged
by the misapprehension that it is some sort of sign of weakness, or
of a deficient desideratum

The purpose of our joint statement with Peter Suber had been to make
explicit what is already true de facto, which is that both
price-barrier-free access and permission-barrier-free access are
indeed forms of Open Access (OA), and referred to as such, and that
virtually all Green OA today, and much of Gold OA today, is just
price-barrier-free OA, not permission-barrier-free OA, although we
both agree that permission-barrier-free OA is the ultimate
desideratum.

But what Peter Suber and I had not anticipated was that if
price-barrier-free OA were actually named by its logical condition as
"Weak OA" (i.e., the necessary condition for permission-barrier-free
OA) then that would create difficulties for those who are working
hard toward the universal adoption of the mandates to provide
price-barrier-free OA (Green OA self-archiving mandates) that are
only now beginning to grow and flourish.

In particular, Professor Bernard Rentier, the Rector of the
University of Liege (which has adopted a Green OA
self-archiving mandate to provide price-barrier-free OA) is also the
founder of EurOpenScholar, which is dedicated to promoting the
adoption of Green OA mandates in the universities of Europe and
worldwide. Professor Rentier advised us quite explicitly that if
price-boundary-free OA were called "Weak OA," it would make it much
harder to persuade other rectors to adopt Green OA mandates -- purely
because of the negative connotations of "weak."

Nor is the solution to try instead to promote permission-barrier-free
("Strong OA") mandates, for the obstacles and resistance to that are
far, far greater. We are all agreed that it is not realistic to
expect consensus from either authors, university administrators or
funders on the adoption of, or compliance with, mandates to provide
permission-barrier-free OA at this time, and that the growth of
price-barrier-free OA should on no account be slowed by or
subordinated to efforts to promote permission-barrier-free OA (though
all of us are in favour of permission-barrier-free OA too).

So, as the label "weak" would be a handicap, we need another label.
The solution is not to spell it out longhand every time either, as
"price-barrier-free OA," etc. That would be as awkward as it would be
absurd.

So we are looking for a short-hand or stand-in for
"price-barrier-free OA" and "permission-barrier-free OA" that will
convey the distinction without any pejorative connotations for either
form of OA. The two forms of OA stand defined, explicitly and
logically. They are now in need of value-neutral names.

Suggested names are welcome -- but not if they have negative
connotations for either form of OA. Nor is it an option to
re-appropriate the label "OA" for only one of the two forms of OA.

Stevan Harnad
Received on Sat May 03 2008 - 04:16:07 BST