Re: Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus

From: (wrong string) élène.Bosc <hbosc-tchersky_at_orange.fr>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 14:08:18 +0200

It is difficult to discuss of taste or colours. 
In my opinion,  ~Snot one full of pro-OA platitudes (like the Berlin
Declaration) but of anti-OA canards and nonsequiturs~T are not "cheap
polemics" : just words expressing personal ideas with a strong
style. 
A "cat" can be a "pussy-cat" or "a durty cat" or " a beast "  : it
depends on the feeling you have for a cat, for some cats or for cats
. 
Censoring a style seems a difficult exercise in a forum.
Hélène Bosc
      ----- Original Message -----
From: Hans Falk Hoffmann
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus

Apart from the factual reply by Prof. Dr. Eberhard R. Hilf,
that tells all the necessary facts about what is happening in
Germany,  you, Stevan Harnard, should have a proper look at
your own language ~Snot one full of pro-OA platitudes (like the
Berlin Declaration) but of anti-OA canards and nonsequiturs~T.
 This is cheap polemics and not appropriate to this forum!

 

---------------------------------------------

Dr. Hans F Hoffmann

CERN-PH honorary

CH 1211 Genève 23

Tel. +41 22 7675458

Email: hans.falk.hoffmann_at_cern.ch

 

 

 

 

From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 04 May 2009 18:02
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus

 

                  ** Apologies for
                  Cross-Posting **

 

Yet another declaration/petition/statement/manifesto concerning
OA has been drafted, this time not one full
of pro-OA platitudes (like the Berlin Declaration) but of
anti-OA canards and nonsequiturs:The Heidelberg Appeal
("Heidelberger Appel"), launched by the German text
critic, Roland Reuss.

(These misunderstandings are intentional when promulgated by
publishers lobbying against OA [e.g., the "DC Principles," the
"Prism Coalition" and the "Brussels Declaration"] but not in
the case of scholars waxing righteously indignant about their
rights without first coming to a clear understanding of what is
really at issue, as in the case of Herr Reuss.)

An article in the 2 May 2009 Zuercher Zeitung seems to catch
and correct a few of the ambiguities and absurdities of Reuss's
singularly wrong-headed argument, but far from all of them. 

Someone still has to state, loud and clear (and in German!),
that Herr Reuss (and the signatories he has managed to inspire
to follow him in his failure to grasp what is actually at
issue) is:

(1) conflating consumer piracy of authors' non-give-away texts
(largely books) with author give-aways of their own journal
articles (which is what Open Access is about);

(2) conflating Open Access with Google book scanning; 

(3) conflating "Gratis" Open Access (free online access), which
is what all the Green Open Access Self-Archiving and
self-archiving mandates are, with "Libre" (free online access
PLUS re-use rights), which only some Gold OA journals are
providing, and again, in accordance with the wishes and
agreement of the author.

The Humanities are more book-intensive than other disciplines,
but insofar as their journal articles are concerned, they are
no different: their authors write them (and give them away) for
usage and impact, not royalty income.

So insofar as OA is concerned, the "Heidelberger Appell" is
largely misunderstanding, nonsense and mischief, and I still
hope this will be clearly exposed and put-paid-to in the German
Press, otherwise it will continue to retard the progress of OA
in Germany.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Received on Tue May 05 2009 - 14:34:02 BST