[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Critique of STM Critique of NIH Proposa
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: Critique of STM Critique of NIH Proposa
- From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:33:08 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Dr. James J. O'Donnell wrote: > The item cited below makes this point repeatedly: > > "To repeat, what is being proposed is not an alternative business > model but that access to journal articles reporting the results of > NIH-funded research should be supplemented with free public online > access for all those would-be users who cannot afford paid access." > > Do I interpret this correctly as meaning that *only* those who cannot > afford paid access should be given free access? On the model of proposals > to reform U.S. health care? No, it means that only those who cannot afford paid access to article X *need* free access to article X (for each article X). And the analog analogy with health care fails because open access means digital online access, free for all. Whatever is free on the web is free for all (on the web). One does not have to furnish a certificate of indigence in order to access a fee website! Don't confuse (1) why, and for whom, and for what the free access version is *needed* with (2) the effective consequence that the free access version is free for anyone, whether they need it or not. Having said that, however, the publisher's proprietary version may have many value-added online enhancements that the author's self-archived vanilla version lacks: the self-archived OA version is merely the peer-reviewed, accepted, final draft of the paper that the author has written. So there are plenty of reasons (not the least of these reasons being the continuing market for the paper version). why those institutions that can afford the publisher's version will want to keep subscribing/licensing it, even when OA reaches 100% (for those who need it). Stevan Harnad > That's very different from what I've been > understanding as Open Access, but interesting to explore. There seems to > be progress in that direction: > > http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/develop.shtml > > Jim O'Donnell > Georgetown U.
- Prev by Date: RE: Critique of STM Critique of NIH Proposal
- Next by Date: Chronicle of Higher Ed
- Previous by thread: Critique of STM Critique of NIH Proposal (fwd)
- Next by thread: Chronicle of Higher Ed
- Index(es):