Open Access Archivangelism

The new RePEc blog is a welcome addition to the blogosphere. The economics community is to be congratulated for its longstanding practise of self-archiving its pre-refereeing preprints and exporting them to RePEc.

Re: the current RePEc blog posting, "New Peer Review Systems":

Experiments on improving peer review are always welcome, but what the worldwide research community (in all disciplines, economics included) needs most urgently today is not peer review reform, but Open Access (OA) to its existing peer-reviewed journal literature. It's far easier to reform access than to reform the peer-review system, and it's also already obvious exactly what needs to be done and how, for OA -- mandate RePEc-style self-archiving, but for the refereed postprints, not just the unrefereed preprints -- whereas peer-review reforms are still in the testing stage. It's not even clear whether once most unrefereed preprints and all refereed postprints are OA anyone will still feel any need for radical peer review reform at all; it may simply be a matter of more efficient online implementation.

So if I were part of the RePEc community, I would be trying to persuade economists (who, happily, already have the preprint self-archiving habit) to extend their practise to postprints -- and to persuade their institutions and funders to mandate postprint self-archiving in each author's own OAI-compliant Institutional Repository (IR). From there, if and when desired, its metadata can then also be harvested by, or exported to, CRs (Central Repositories) like RePEc or PubMed Central. (One of the rationales for OAI-interoperability is harvestability.)

But the primary place to deposit one's own preprints and postprints, in all disciplines, is "at home," i.e., in one's own institutional archive, for visibility, usage, impact, record-keeping, monitoring, metrics, and assessment -- and in order to ensure a scaleable universal practise that systematically covers all research space, whether funded or unfunded, in all disciplines, single or multi, and at all institutions -- universities and research institutes. (For institutions that have not yet created an IR of their own -- even though the software is free and the installation is quick, easy, and cheap -- there are reliable interim CRs such as Depot to deposit in, and harvest back from, once your institution has its own IR.)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

On Wednesday, October 17, one day before EurOpenScholar was launched by the Rector of the University of Liège, the Rector of the University of Brasilia (UnB) launched a Brazilian Open Access Task Force at a meeting hosting the rectors of six major Brazilian universities and the head of IBICT (Brazilian Institute for Information on Science and Technology). By way of a practical follow-up to the many manifestos and declarations already signed by Brazil's research institutions, the Task Force will inform the Brazilian university community about how Brazil's universities and research institutions can provide open access by establishing institutional repositories and institutional deposit mandates. OASIS.Br will also provide a central portal to Brazilian repositories and Open Access e-journals.

The US Senate has now passed the NIH Green OA Mandate by a big majority There is now no need for US Universities to keep waiting (to see whether it is implemented, or vetoed by President Bush). Knowing they have the blessing of both Houses of Congress, universities can already go ahead and adopt Green OA Mandates requiring their own institutional research output to be deposited in their own Institutional Repositories -- and not just the NIH-funded biomedical research, but all their research output (along the lines of the US Federal Research Public Access Act [FRPAA], which is also soon to be revived). Research funders (including the NIH!) can go ahead with their mandates too. The handwriting is on the wall, and it is Green. Until mandates are adopted, daily, weekly, monthly research access and impact are still being lost, needlessly, and cumulatively, at the expense of research productivity and progress for us all.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

---

SUMMARY: AAAS is fully Green on immediate OA self-archiving of the peer-reviewed postprint. Nature started out being Green, but then back-slid to pale-Green in 2005, introducing a 6-month embargo on self-archiving. But the ACS (American Chemical Society) is Gray. Rumored to be one of the three publishers that backed PRISM, ACS is the only Gray publisher to ask its authors to pay extra for the right to self-archive: paying for Green!
    Chemists are among the most difficult to rally in favor of OA, but they can definitely be aroused in favor of data-archiving. The surest and fastest antidote for ACS's grayness, however, is for universities and research funders to adopt the Immediate-Deposit (ID/OA) Mandate, which allows a Closed Access Embargo, but requires deposit of the postprint immediately upon acceptance for publication (allowing the Institutional Repository's semi-automatized "Email Eprint Request" or "Fair Use" Button to provide almost-OA almost-immediately, to tide over any embargo period).

---

[Identity Deleted]: "At the AAAS 2007 meeting held in San Francisco, Tony Hey, in his presentation to a panel chaired by Christine Borgman, made the point that some form of open access to text and data would be the norm in about ten years from now. Ironically, AAAS [along with ACS] is among the few leading professional societies which opposes open access tooth and nail! What can we do to convince the AAAS management (as well as the ACS management) to see the point that is obvious to us? Some believe that AAAS opposes OA while commercial publishers such as Nature Group supports OA in some form..."

AAAS is fully Green on immediate OA self-archiving of the peer-reviewed postprint; hence there is nothing we need to convince AAAS of!

(Indeed, it is Nature that back-slid to pale-Green in 2005: Nature started out being Green, but then introduced a 6-month embargo on self-archiving coinciding with the announcement that the NIH agreed had agreed to embargoes.)

But it is ACS (American Chemical Society) that is Gray.

And although it is a good idea to keep trying to convince them, my own guess is that ACS will be among the very last of the publishers to go Green. ACS was rumored to be one of the three publishers that backed PRISM. (The other two were rumored to be Elsevier, which is fully Green, and Wiley, which is Pale-Green).

ACS is the Learned Society with the biggest and most remunerative publishing operation. With Chemical Abstracts they make a lot more money than the American Physical Society (APS), which was the very first of the Green publishers, and which set the standard for all the rest.

The strongest weapon against the ACS's Gray policy is the movement for data-archiving. (The two strongest contingents of the movement for data-archiving are in Biology and in Chemistry; I have branched this to Peter Murray-Rust, Jeremy Frey, and Michael Hursthouse.)

The chemical research community, accustomed to the status quo, with Chemical Abstracts and the other ACS products and services, is one of the most quiescent on the movement to provide OA to journal articles, but they can be roused on the subject of data-archiving.

And, ironically, ACS is also the most vulnerable there: Other publishers, since they do not publish data, have no big stake in data-archiving, one way or another. But for ACS, data-archiving (just like article-archiving) represents (or appears to them to represent) a risk to their revenue-streams.

So chemists are among the most difficult to rally in favor of OA, but they can definitely be aroused in favor of data-archiving. And in chemistry, of all fields, the two are very closely coupled, since many chemical publications (e.g. in crystallography) consist of just the description of a new molecule. See:

(1) Southampton Crystal Structure Report Archive/EPSRC
(2) Mineralogical Society of America/NSF
(3) RRUF/NSF
(4) NCL in Pune (theses)
(5) Elsevier's somewhat half-hearted (because ambivalent) "Chemistry Preprint Server"

So NSF is a potential ally in influencing the ACS. So too would be NIH (if it weren't the victim of ACS's successful anti-OA lobbying at the moment); and the UK's EPSRC (which is obviously conflicted on this issue, being the last of the UK funding councils to still hold out as non-Green!)

One last point: Please do not confuse a publisher's stand on Gold OA (publishing) with their stand on Green OA (self-archiving). Gold OA is welcome, but it is Green OA that is urgently needed. In this regard, AAAS (Green) is fully on the side of the Angels, whereas Nature (Pale-Green) is not.

The only two differences between AAAS and Nature are that (1) AAAS is still (nominally) supporting the "Ingelfinger Rule" on prepublication preprints (but that is not a legal matter, and those authors who wish to ignore the unjustified and unenforceable Ingelfinger Rule can ignore it). and (2) Nature has begun to experiment with Gold. This experimentation can be cynical and self-serving, but it is not, I think, in the case of Nature.

In the case of ACS, however, which has begun to "experiment" with the Trojan Horse of "AuthorChoice," it has become the only Gray publisher, as far as I know, to have the temerity to ask its authors to pay extra for the right to self-archive: paying for Green!

In my opinion, there is nothing to reproach AAAS with. I'd be somewhat more inclined to shame Nature, with its 6-month embargo, but the best solution for that is to adopt the Immediate-Deposit Mandate (ID/OA), which allows a Closed Access Embargo, but requires deposit of the postprint immediately upon acceptance for publication (allowing the Institutional Repository's semi-automatized "Email Eprint Request" or "Fair Use" Button to provide almost-OA almost-immediately, to tide over any embargo period).

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Alma Swan replied:

Alma Swan: "There is no need to shame Nature because those who think self-archiving is worth doing, do it despite Nature's embargo, as I showed by my little study on Nature Physics: see "Author compliance with publisher open access embargoes: a study of the journal Nature Physics."
"The important action point is what it always has been - get through to authors and their bosses and persuade them of the benefits and rationale for OA. Turn them all into physicists, in other words."

I agree completely with Alma: It is, and always has been, perfectly possibly -- and practised -- to go ahead and self-archive with impunity, sensibly ignoring all the formal nonsense about only being allowed to post on "a Windows-based personal website on Tuesdays if you have a blue-eyed maternal uncle"! Those who elect to self-archive spontaneously are sensible enough to know that the "permissions barriers" are in reality all just so much unenforceable Wizard-of-Ozzery.

But the fact remains that only about 15% of researchers elect to self-archive spontaneously! That is why the mandates are needed. And whereas rightly dismissing the posturing of publishers as mere Wizard-of-Ozzery is an easy option for individual authors, already inclined to self-archive spontaneously (as generations of Green self-archiving computer-scientists and physicists and others have by now amply demonstrated), it is not an easy option for most institutions and funding agencies contemplating the adoption of formal self-archiving mandates. They must adopt a policy that is not only practically feasible, but also formally legal. (Even there, I don't think the institutions are at any real risk, but they are at a perceived risk.)

That is why -- despite being in possession of her strong, welcome, and compelling evidence on how many Nature authors do self-archive immediately indifferent to Nature's shameful 6-month embargo -- Alma is a co-author of the optimal institutional (and funder) self-archiving policy, which recommends (if you cannot agree on the stronger version, which is to require immediate deposit and immediate, unembargoed Open Access) a weaker compromise, namely, the ID/OA mandate: require immediate deposit, but merely encourage immediate OA -- allowing the option of a Closed Access embargo period for the likes of Nature authors):

"[drafted collaboratively by Alma Swan, Arthur Sale, Subbiah Arunachalam, Peter Suber and Stevan Harnad by modifying the Wellcome Trust Self-Archiving Policy to eliminate the 6-month embargo and the central archiving requirement]"

So, yes, the embargoes are a paper tiger, but we still have to offer a formal policy option that treats their appearance of being real as if it were really real, and can be adopted universally without any worry about illegality, or even the appearance of illegality)!

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

    On her own blog,

    OptimalScholarship,

    Alma Swan

    has blogged the historic U. Liège OA meeting

    that launched EurOpenScholar

---

Photo by and (c) 2007 Derek Ramsey

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 only as published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "Text of the GNU Free Documentation License."

A Conference of Rectors of European Universities convened in Liège on 18 October 2007 by the Rector of the University of Liège, Bernard Rentier, has launched EurOpenScholar:

"a showcase and a tool for the promotion of Open Access (OA) in Europe. It will be a consortium of European universities resolved to move forward on OA and to try to convince the largest possible number of researchers, their institutions and their European Funding Agencies to engage now in what will undoubtedly be the mode of communication of tomorrow. The transitional period will be the most challenging. Our goal is to facilitate and thereby accelerate as much as possible the transition to the OA era.

"The EurOpenScholar web site, hosted by the ULg, will provide an information-gathering service concerning OA institutional repositories and OA journals, with a discussion forum on OA as well as the methods emerging in the field of scientometrics (research performance and impact measurement, ranking and analysis).

"EurOpenScholar's primary objective will be to open researchers' eyes to the new ways of promoting the spread of knowledge and of assessing research progress and performance in the OA era. This will contribute to the advancement of research in Europe and to the promotion of European research and researchers.

"In addition, EurOpenScholar will address itself to research managers, funding agencies, national and local research policy-makers, the R&D industry, the media, and the general public, facilitating synergies and technology transfer and providing an effective channel for the communication of real science to the public, either directly or through the media."

Translated from text of Bernard Rentier, Rector, Université deLiège.

I unfortunately could not attend the European University Rectors' Conference on Open Access, convened by the Bernard Rentier, Rector of the University of Liège on 18 October 2007, but I did send this 23-minute video on OA Mandates and Metrics, part of which, so I understand from Alma Swan, was shown at the Conference:

Please feel free to use the video to promote OA mandates and metrics at your institution: download video

Here are the video's accompanying 3 figures as PPT or as PNG.

And here is an older, bigger PPT, with many more figures that you can use to explain and promote OA at your institution.

Richard Poynder, the de facto chronicler of the Open Access Movement (and beyond), has at long last done one of his characteristically probing and always insightful interviews with "the de facto leader of the open access (OA) movement," Peter Suber. Read, learn, and admire.

Has anybody noticed
on the QWERTY keyboard
if you overshoot OA
then you have typed
PS?

---

[Update: See new definition of "Weak" and "Strong" OA, 29/4/2008]

SUMMARY: The definition of Open Access (OA) is still young, and not yet etched in stone; it stands only to benefit from a rational, corrective update. Parts of the (increasingly gilded) BBB formulation turn out to have been unnecessary, counterproductive, and even incoherent. The right to re-publish, re-sell and create derivative works may be essential for Free Online Scholarship (FOS), and for the Creative Commons, but they are not essential for OA, and it would be an unnecessary, self-imposed handicap to insist that they should be, merely raising barriers to OA where there are and need be none. It is a good idea for authors to retain extra rights for their published articles, wherever possible, but it is definitely not a necessary prerequisite for Green OA self-archiving, nor for Green OA self-archiving mandates.
   For the 62% of articles published in the Green journals that have explicitly endorsed the immediate OA self-archiving of the author's postprint, no further rights are needed to self-archive it, hence no further rights need to be negotiated as a precondition. And robotic harvesting and data-mining (Google, Scirus, OAIster) all come with the free online territory as surely as individual usage does.
   For the 38% of articles published in non-Green journals, authors can still deposit them in their Institutional Repositories (IRs), immediately upon acceptance for publication, setting access as Closed Access. With the help of the IR's "Email Eprint Request" Button, this provides for (1) accessing, (2) reading, (3) downloading, (4) storing (5) printing-off, (6) individual data-mining, and (7) re-using content (but not text) in further publications. That is still not OA; it is only almost-OA: Missing is full-text (8*) robotic harvesting and (9*) robotic data-mining.
   If all or most universities already mandated exception-free immediate-deposit as above (Open Access for the Green 62% and Closed Access for the non-Green 38%), there would be no problem at all about then going still further and trying to negotiate the retention of more rights -- even unnecessary ones! But instead declaring successful rights retention to be a precondition (by BBB "definition") would simply hamstring both self-archiving and the adoption of self-archiving mandates, and hence the advent of OA itself.

---

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Frederick Friend wrote:

"I also agree with [Peter Suber, Peter Murray-Rust and Robert Kiley] that the UKPMC re-use agreement is vital for future academic developments. With hindsight we were too slow to pick up on the significance of the changes to copyright transfer agreements in the 1990s by which authors now assign all electronic rights to publishers. Blanket assigning of electronic rights has created and is still creating barriers in the electronic re-use of subscription content. We cannot afford to make the same mistake of neglect on the arrangements for academic re-use of OA content, whether green or gold."

I am afraid that this is more a matter of misunderstanding than of disagreement:

(1) The disagreement (with PS, PM-R and RK) was not about whether or not it is a good idea for the author to retain certain electronic rights. (It is a good idea for the author to do so, wherever possible. However, rights-retention is not a necessary prerequisite for Green OA self-archiving, nor for Green OA self-archiving mandates. Hence it would be a big mistake to imply otherwise: i.e., to imply that authors cannot self-archive, and/or their institutions/funders cannot mandate that they self-archive, until/unless the author successfully negotiates rights-retention. That would not only be incorrect, but it would be a gratuitous deterrent to self-archiving and to self-archiving mandates, hence to OA.)

(2) The disagreement was instead about:

(2a) whether or not certain electronic rights (not the same rights as in (1), above, by the way!), provided by certain Gold OA copyright agreements, were indeed necessary in order for research and researchers to derive the full benefits of OA (they are not)

and

(2b) whether or not there existed any further necessary rights or capabilities over and above those already inherent in Green OA self-archiving -- rights that therefore either had to be successfully negotiated with a non-OA publisher or had to be purchased from a Gold OA publisher in order to render an article OA (there are none)

I am sorry to sound like a pedant, but these details are devilishly important, and need to be understood quite explicitly:

Concerning (1) (i.e., rights retention as a prerequisite to Green OA self-archiving), what I said was that for the 62% of articles published in Green journals -- i.e., those that have explicitly endorsed the immediate OA self-archiving of the postprint (whether final draft or PDF) -- no further rights are needed to self-archive them, hence no further rights need to be negotiated as a precondition for self-archiving. The self-archived work is "protected" by standard copyright, and it is also OA, with all the attendant usage capabilities (of which I listed nine, covering all uses that research and researchers require, which are also all the self-same uses for which OA itself was proposed).

I also said that for the 38% of articles published in non-Green journals -- i.e., those journals that have not yet explicitly endorsed the immediate OA self-archiving, by the author, of the postprint (whether final draft or PDF) -- the strategy that I recommend is (a) mandated Immediate Deposit, Optional Closed Access and reliance on the semi-automatic "Email Eprint Request" Button to cover usage needs during the embargo.

I agreed, however, that it is possible to disagree on this strategic point, and to prefer instead (b) to try to negotiate rights retention with the non-Green publisher or else to (c) publish instead with a Gold OA publisher that provides the requisite rights. There is of course nothing at all wrong with strategy (b) and/or (c) as a matter of individual choice in each case. But strategy (a) is intended as the default strategy for facilitating exception-free self-archiving, and especially for facilitating the adoption of legal-objection-immune, exception-free self-archiving mandates.

So far, the only "right" at issue is the right to self-archive -- the right to provide immediate Green OA. It is that Green OA that I was arguing was sufficient to provide full OA (and the 62% of journals that are Green have already endorsed it.)

But now we come to (2): certain "re-use" rights and capabilities that purportedly go beyond those that already come with the territory, with Green OA self-archiving. Now we are no longer speaking of the right to self-archive, obviously, but of the right to create certain kinds of "derivative works" that one may re-publish (and perhaps even re-sell).

What I said there was that the right to re-publish, re-sell, and create derivative works for re-publication or re-sale is not part of OA. They are something extra (approaching certain kinds of Creative Commons Licenses). Most important, those extra rights are not necessary for research and researchers, they go far beyond OA, and they would handicap OA's already too-slow progress towards universality if added as a gratuitous extra precondition on counting as "full-blooded OA."

The very idea that these extra rights are needed comes not from the intuitions of the library community about how to include subscription content in course-packs -- those needs are trivially fulfilled by inserting the URLs of Green OA postprints in the course-packs, instead of inserting the documents themselves! -- but from intuitions about data-mining from (some sectors) of the biological and chemical community (inspired largely by the data-sharing of the human genome project as well as similar chemical-structure data-sharing in chemistry).

There are very valid concerns about research data sharing: note that such data are typically not contained in published articles, but are supplements to them that until the online era had no way of being published at all, because the data-sets were too big. So the concern is about licensing these data to make them openly accessible and to prevent their ever becoming subject to the same access-barriers as subscription content.

This is a very important and valid goal but, strictly speaking, it is not an OA matter, because these research data are not part of the published content of journal articles! So, yes, providing online access to these data does definitely require explicit rights licensing, but no one is stopping their authors (the holders of the data) from adopting those licenses! (The appropriate CC licenses exist.) And there's certainly no reason to pay a Gold OA publisher for those extra rights or rights agreements for data, which are hitherto unpublished content that can now be licensed and self-archived directly.

This brings us to the second case, the case that I suspect those who see an extra rights problem here have most in mind: It concerns the content of published journal articles, both inasmuch as the articles may indeed contain some primary data, as opposed to merely summaries, descriptions and analyses, and inasmuch as the article texts themselves can be seen as constituting potential data. This is where data-mining rights and derivative-works rights come in: "Naked" Green OA -- simply making these published full-texts accessible online, free for all -- is not enough (think these theorists) to guarantee that robots can data-mine their contents and that the results can be made accessible (published, or re-published) as "derivative works," unless those extra "rights" (to data-mine and create derivative works) are explicitly licensed.

My reply is very simple: robotic harvesting and data-mining come with the free online territory as surely as individual use does. Remember that we are talking about authors' self-archived postprints here, not the publishers' proprietary PDFs, whether Gray or Gold. If the journal is Green, it endorses the author's right to deposit the postprint in his OA IR. The rest (individual accessibility, Google, Scirus, OAIster, robotic harvestability, and data-mining) all come with that Green OA territory. So the contention is not about the Green OA self-archiving of the postprints published in the 62% of journals that are Green.

Is the contention then about the 38% of articles published in non-Green journals? I agree at once that if the author feels he cannot make those articles Green OA immediately, and instead deposits them as Closed Access, then, with the help of the IR's "Email Eprint Request" Button, only re-use capabilities (1)-(7) [(1) accessing, (2) reading, (3) downloading, (4) storing (5) printing, (6) individual data-mining, and (7) re-using content (but not text) in further publications] are possible.

This is definitely not OA; it is merely almost-OA. Missing is full-text (8*) robotic harvesting and (9*) robotic data-mining. If, to try to avoid this outcome, an author who fully intends to deposit his postprint immediately upon acceptance regardless of the outcome, first elects to try to negotiate the retention of more rights with his publisher -- or even elects to publish with a paid Gold publisher rather than deposit as Closed Access, with almost-OA -- that's just fine!That author is intent on self-archiving either way. The problem with holding out for and insisting upon more rights is (1) the author who would not deposit except if the publisher was Green (or Gold), and -- even more important -- (2) the institutions that would not mandate depositing except if all publishers were already Green (or Gold).

It is those authors and those institutions that are the main retardants on universal OA today. If most universities already mandated immediate-deposit either way (OA or CA), I would do nothing but applaud the efforts to negotiate the retention of more rights -- even unnecessary ones! -- But it would still remain true that no rights retention at all was necessary in order to deposit all postprints (and attain almost-OA), and that only a publisher endorsement of Green OA self-archiving was needed to attain full OA (1-9*). And it would remain true that re-publication, re-sale and "derivative-works" rights had nothing to do with either OA or the real needs of research and researchers.

[I am not, by the way, dear readers, "adulterating" OA; I am accelerating it, whereas those who are needlessly raising the barriers are (unintentionally) retarding it. Nor do, did or will I ever -- even should the string of B's get still longer! -- accept those parts of the increasingly gilded BBB "definition" of OA that are and ever have been unnecessary or incoherent, hence counterproductive for OA itself -- although I shame-facedly confess to having failed to pick up on that incoherence immediately in B1. That's what comes of being slow-witted. Blackballed from B2, I (with many others) was merely window-dressing at B3, which was really just, by now, ritually reiterating B2. If there is any "permission" barrier at all, it is a psychological one, and it pertains only to the "permission" to provide Green OA, no more -- something I always carefully call "endorse" (or sometimes "bless") rather than "permit" or "allow," because I think that's all just a matter of Wizard of Ozery too, and will be seen to have been such in hindsight, once this maddenly molluscan trek to the optimal and inevitable is at long last behind us...]

One last point -- made in full respect and admiration for Peter Suber. Peter understands every word I am saying and always has. His position, of all the people on this planet, is closest to my own. But Peter in fact has grander goals than I do. His "FOS" (Free Online Scholarship) movement predated OA, and had a much bigger target: It included no less than all of scholarship, online: not just journal articles, but books, multimedia, teaching materials, everything. And the freedom was a greater freedom than freedom to access and use the scholarship.

I greatly value, and fully support Peter's wider goals. But I don't think they are just OA. They are FOS. (I shall be remembered only as an impatient, testy, parochial OA archivangelist, whereas Peter will be rightly recognised as the patient, temperate, ecumenical archangel of FOS.) But OA does have the virtue of being the easier, nearer, surer subgoal.

I think that every time a little divergence arises between Peter and me, it is always a variant of this: He still has his heart and mind set on FOS, and it is good that he does. Someone eventually has to fight that fight too. But OA is narrower than that, and it is also nearer; indeed it is within reach. Hence it is ever so important that we should not over-reach, trying to attain something that is further, and more complicated than OA, when we don't yet even have OA! For we thereby risk needlessly complicating and further delaying the already absurdly overdue attainment of OA.

I think that is what is behind our strategic difference on (1) whether OA requires the elimination of all "permission" barriers or (2) whether, after all, the elimination of all "price" barriers -- via Green OA self-archiving (which is and always has been my model, and my ever-faithful "intuition pump") -- does give us all the capabilities worth having, and worth holding out for. Re-publication rights and the right to create derivative works may be essential for FOS, and for the Creative Commons in general. But they are not essential for OA in particular; and it would be an unnecessary, self-imposed handicap to insist that they should be. That would merely raise barriers for OA where there are and need be none.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

---

SUMMARY: Data-mining robots like SciBorg can harvest Green OA full-texts, self-archived in their authors' Institutional Repositories (IRs) and “repurpose” them for better functionality. The postprint is the author’s own refereed, revised final draft. Green journal publishers endorse author posting of postprints in their own IR, free for all. The author can certainly revise that draft further, making additional corrections, updates and enhancements, including marking it up in XML and adding comments. Those corrections need not be done by the author's own hands: They could be done by a graduate student, a collaborator, a secretary, or a hired hand. The author could also have SciBorg “repurpose” his postprint -- under one trivial condition, easily fulfilled, which is that the locus of the enhanced postprint, the URL from which users must download it, remains the author’s own IR, not a 3rd-party website. It is not only unnecessary but would be highly inimical to the progress of Green OA mandates to insist instead that the Green publisher’s endorsement to self-archive the postprint in the author’s IR is "not enough" for full-blooded OA — that the author must also successfully negotiate with the publisher the retention of the right to assign to 3rd-party harvesters like SciBorg the right to publish a “derivative work” derived from the author’s postprint.

---

In "Why Green Open Access does not support text- and data-mining", Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

PM-R: "...the first thing to do is to gather a corpus of documents... any other scientist should be able to have access to it. It therefore has to be freely distributable..."

Agreed. So far this is just bog-standard OA. If the original documents are self-archived as Green OA postprints in their authors' Institutional Repositories (IRs), your SciBorg robot can harvest them and data-mine them, and make the results freely accessible (but linking back to the postprint in the author's IR whenever the full-text needs to be downloaded).

PM-R: "[At SciBorg] we are interested in machines understanding science..."

Fine. Let your SciBorg machines harvest the Green OA full-texts and "repurpose" them as they see fit.

PM-R: "almost all articles are copyrighted and non-distributable. Publisher Copyright is a major barrier... you can’t just go out and compile a wordlist or whatever as you may infringe copyright or invisible publisher contracts (we found that out the hard way)..."

You can't do that if you are harvesting the publisher's proprietary text, but you can certainly do that if you are harvesting the author's Green OA postprints.

PM-R: "PDFs are so awful... we have to repurpose them by converting to HTML, XML and so on..."

Fine.

PM-R: "Now the corpus is annotated. Expert humans go through line by line...It is this annotated corpus which is of most use to the scientific community..."

Fine.

PM-R: "So suppose I find 50 articles in 50 different repositories, all of which claim to be Green Open Access. I now download them, aggregate them and [SciBorg] repurpose[s] them. What is the likelihood that some publisher will complain? I would guess very high..."

Complain about what, and to whom? A Green publisher has endorsed the author's posting of his own Green OA postprint in his own IR, free for all. The postprint is the author's own refereed, revised final draft. Now follow me: Having endorsed the posting of that draft, does anyone imagine that the publisher would have any grounds for objection if the author revised the draft further, making additional corrections and enhancements? Of course not. It's exactly the same thing: the author's Green OA postprint.

So what if the author decides to mark it up as XML and add comments? Any grounds for objections? Again, no. Corrections, updates and enhancements of the author's postprint are in complete conformity with posting his postprint.

Suppose the author did not do those corrections with his own hands, but had a colleague, graduate student, a secretary, or a hired hand do them for him, and then posted the corrected postprint? Still perfectly fine.

Now suppose the author had your SciBorg "repurpose" his postprint: Any difference? None -- except a trivial condition, easily fulfilled, which is that the locus of the enhanced postprint, the URL from which users can download it, should again be the author's IR, not a 3rd-party website (which the publisher could then legitimately regard as a rival publisher -- especially if it was selling access to the "repurposed" text).

So the solution is quite obvious and quite trivial: It is fine for the SciBorg harvester to be the locus of the data-mining and enhancement of each Green OA postprint. It can also be the means by which users search and navigate the corpus. But SciBorg must not be the locus from which the user accesses the full-text: The "repurposed" full-text must be parked in the author's own IR, and retrieved from there whenever a user wants to read and download it (rather than just to search and surf the entire corpus via SciBorg).

Not only does this all sound silly: it really is silly. In the online age, it makes no functional difference at all where a document is actually physically located, especially if the document is OA! But we are still at the confused interface between the paper age and the OA era. So we have to be prepared to go through a few silly rituals, to forestall any needless fits of apoplexy, which would otherwise mean further dysfunctional delay (for OA).

So the ritual is this: It would be highly inimical to the progress of Green OA mandates to insist that the publisher's endorsement to self-archive the postprint in the author's IR is "not enough" -- that the author must also successfully negotiate with the publisher the retention of the right to assign to 3rd-party harvesters like SciBorg the right to publish a "derivative work" derived from the author's postprint. That would definitely be the tail wagging the dog, insofar as OA is concerned, and it would put authors off providing Green OA (and hence put their institutions off mandating it) for a long time to come.

Instead, when SciBorg harvests a document from a Green OA IR, SciBorg must make an arrangement with the author that the resultant "repurposed" draft will be deposited by the author in the author's own IR as an update of the postprint. Then, whenever a user of SciBorg wishes to retrieve the "repurposed" draft, the downloading site must always be the author's IR: no direct retrieval from the SciBorg site.

This ritual is ridiculous, and of course it is functionally unnecessary, but it is pseudo-juridically necessary, during this imbecilic interregnum, to keep all parties (publishers, lawyers, IP specialists, institutions, authors) calm and happy -- or at least mutely resigned -- about the transition to the optimal and inevitable that is currently taking place. Once it's over, and we have 100% Green OA, all this papyrophrenic horseplay can be well-deservedly dropped for the nonsense it is.

Please, Peter, be prepared to adapt SciBorg to the exigencies of this all-important (and all too slow-footed) transitional phase, rather than trying to force-fit the status quo to SciBorg, at the cost of still more delays to OA.

PM-R: "Only a rights statement actually on each document would allow us to create a corpus for NLP without fear of being asked to take it down..."

No. Green OA authors with standard copyright agreements are not in a position to license republication rights to SciBorg or any other 3rd party. Let us be happy that they have provided Green OA at all, and let SciBorg be the one to adapt to it for now, rather than vice versa.

Brody, T., Carr, L., Gingras, Y., Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Swan, A. (2007) Incentivizing the Open Access Research Web: Publication-Archiving, Data-Archiving and Scientometrics. CTWatch Quarterly 3(3).

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum