SUMMARY: "Permission-Barrier-Free OA," because it is on a continuum, needs at least a minimal lower bound to be specified.
"Price-Barrier-Free OA" is not on a continuum. It just means free access online. However, it too needs to make a few obvious details explicit:
(1) The free access is to the full digital document (not just to parts or metadata).
(2) There is no "degree of free" access: Lower-priced access is not "almost free" access.
(3) The free access is immediate, not delayed or embargoed.
(4) The free access is permanent and continuous.
(5) The access is free for any user webwide, not just certain sites, domains or regions.
(6) The free access is one-click and not gerrymandered(as Google Books or copy-blocked PDF are).
Hence "Almost-OA" [via Closed Access plus the "Email Eprint Request" Button] is definitely not OA -- though it will help hasten OA's growth.
Nor does Price-Barrier-Free OA alone count as Permission-Barrier-Free OA. The only way to give that distinction substance, however, is to specify a minimal lower bound for Permission-Barrier-Free OA.
"
Permission-Barrier-Free OA" (regardless of what
name we ultimately agree to assign it), because it is on a
continuum, needs at least a minimal lower bound to be specified, otherwise it is too vague.
"
Price-Barrier-Free OA" (regardless of what name we agree on) does not need an upper or lower bound, because it is not on a continuum. It just means free access online. However, as I have
suggested before, it does need to be shored up a bit by stating the obvious:
(1) The free access is to the full digital document (not just to parts of it, or just to its metadata).
(2) There is no "degree of free" access: Lower-priced access is not "almost free" access, hence it is no kind of OA.
(3) The free access is immediate, not delayed or embargoed: A document is not OA if it will be accessible free in a year, or in 10 or 10,000.
(4) The free access is permanent and continuous: A document is not OA if it is available free for a limited time, say, for an hour, or on even-numbered calendar days.
(5) The access is free for any user webwide, not just those at certain sites or in certain domains or regions.
(6) The free access is one-click and non-gerrymandered: That means instant download without having to do a song and dance for every page (as in Google Books, or copy-blocked PDF). (Hence "Almost-OA" [via Closed Access plus the "Email Eprint Request" Button] is definitely not OA -- though it will help hasten OA's growth by (i) making it easier to adopt self-archiving mandates, by (ii) providing for many urgent research usage needs in the meanwhile, and by (iii) increasing the pressure and demand for OA.)
For Green Price-Barrier-Free OA self-archiving and Green Price-Barrier-Free OA self-archiving mandates, all of these specifications are dead-obvious, irrespective of what proper name we choose to designate it. They are spelled out only for the pedantic, the obtuse, and those who might otherwise be tempted to exploit the word "OA" for other agendas, contrary to the rationale for OA, which is to maximize research access, uptake, usage and
impact in the online age.
But in the case of Permission-Barrier-Free OA, regardless of the name (and even in the case of the
BBB definition), a minimal lower bound has to be specified, otherwise the condition is so vague as to make no sense. The BBB definition gives examples, but it does not commit to a lower bound.
That is like saying "hot" means temperatures like 30 degrees, 300 degrees or 3000 degrees. That still leaves one in perplexity about what, between 0 degrees and 30 degrees, counts as
not hot: In particular, does Price-Barrier-Free OA alone count as Permission-Barrier-Free OA? The answer is No, but the only way to give this condition substance is to specify a minimal lower bound for Permission-Barrier-Free OA.
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum