[Oa-italia] Fwd: il limite minimo per essere OA (secondo Harnad)

[Susanna Mornati]

Buongiorno a tutt*,
sorvolando come sempre sul tono di Stevan e sull'utilita' 
dell'intervento, ecco un elenco delle condizioni minime per l'OA.
Obiettivo, questo condivisibile, e' impedire che si definiscano open 
access, giusto per fregiarsi di un'etichetta di moda, iniziative che 
non lo sono: open archives con soli metadati e/o full text non 
accessibili - o non a tutti, siti con download dietro registrazione - 
o offerta, periodi di embargo, bottoni per richiedere il full-text e 
altre fantasiose condizioni.
Saluti,
Susanna Mornati

>Date:    Sun, 4 May 2008 10:07:36 -0400
>From:    Stevan Harnad <harnad a ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
>Subject: Lower Bound Needed for Permission-Barrier-Free Open Access
>
>"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) 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 
>making it easier to adopt self-archiving mandates, as well as by 
>providing for many urgent research usage needs in the meanwhile.)
>
>(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 months.
>
>(5) There is no "degree of free" access: Lower-priced access is not 
>"almost free" access.
>
>(6) The access is free for any user webwide, not just those at 
>certain sites or in certain domains or regions. 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
>http://openaccess.eprints.org

Susanna Mornati, CILEA
Project Leader AEPIC, www.aepic.it
+39 02 2699 5322, +39 348 7090 226,
mailto:mornati a cilea.it, skype: susanna.mornati