[Open-access] Collections of Libre material

Wed Feb 15 09:48:53 UTC 2012

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> OK, sorry to have misunderstood you.  *Access to all materials for all
> people, and let each use what he or she finds most useful.  Good.*
>
> -- Mike.
>
> Dear All
>

I am afraid that I may have given the wrong impression that I like to make
a distinction between scientists and 'others', and that the full content of
scientific articles is mainly interesting for scientist. I hereby once
again want to make clear that I do not think along these lines. For those
of you who haven"t seen my corrective response (and Mike's answer to it)
yet, please read it below.

I am touching on this subject again because I see that Peter has used this
part of the correspondence from the mailing list in his blog, commenting it
as follows:
[>>Regarding the ongoing discussion on content. I do think it  a priority
to have as many links as possible to* >>full*content, by promoting
archiving of papers with @ccess, by linking to open access articles, by
using the >>Open Access Index as a means to influence the public opinion
and politicians ]* *
*>>*Especially for scientists access to complete articles and data
>> is compulsory, but I guess that for “laymen” illustrative pictures and
>> abstracts would be sufficient*.*
*This is a brilliant example of how people don’t realise the different uses
to which articles can be put.*
*[*the lines between brackets fronm the same post were not quoted in the
blog but they state clearly my preference for full text*].*
*
*
The "I guess..." was a reaction on PMR's mail message on the scarcity of
libre material on a specific area of malaria research where Peter wrote
*Although a collection of 5/70 means that a particular resource is unlikley
to be found, we can look for material that is generically useful. I'm
assuming that in many cases the malaria community would simply need an
example of something. I'm guessing that the following could be generally
useful:
 * images
 * tables
 * graphs
 * introductions
 * reference lists (bibliography)*

This I have taken as a hint of the usefulness of abstracted material
instead of the in most cases (unavailable) full text article.and so my
reaction was simply aiming at this.What I meant to convey was that I
thought additional material could be very useful to *facilitate
access*especially for non-scientists.  What I did not realise  was
that my
reaction would be initially interpreted as patronizing and seemingly
pleading for restricted access for "laymen"..
Enough is enough, we now have got a fine example of a wrong line of
thinking out of this episode and I have hopefully been able to clarify my
real beliefs in this matter

TOM

*
*

> On 13 February 2012 16:44, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to make clear that of course* I do want Access for all to ALL
> CONTENT*.
> > My mail was mainly suggesting that we have to consider the (education)of
> the
> > end user. Scientist doing research will need to read more details and
> others
> > could  possibly make good use of easy links to a WIKI in order to follow
> the
> > content of a particular paper.This is what Bibsoup should also provide I
> > think.
> > *I am also the first to admit that people not from "the field" can
> contribute
> > in most unexpected ways to specific scientific projects*
> > TOM
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I liked your blogs on @ccess very much. Well done Peter. And your
> article
> >>> on open access was class storytelling also, Mike.
> >>> Regarding the ongoing discussion on content. I do think it  a priority
> to
> >>> have as many links as possible to full content, by promoting archiving
> of
> >>> papers with @ccess, by linking to open access articles, by using the
> Open
> >>> Access Index as a means to influence the public opinion and
> politicians.
> >>> Especially for scientists access to complete articles and data
> >>> is compulsory, but I guess that for "laymen" illustrative pictures and
> >>> abstracts would be sufficient. The database should be useful for all.
> >>
> >>
> >> I agree with Mike, and Gilles Frydman makes this very clear - this is
> for
> >> everyone. If someone or their friends/family is suffering from a
> disease -
> >> especially a rare one - they have every incentive to become an expert.
> >>
> >> Specialists retire or change jobs or take a break and they get cutoff
> from
> >> acaemic publications. People outside academia often know MORE than
> those in
> >> it - naturalists, social workers, business people, politicians -
> whoever. We
> >> need these people.Medics may not be statisticians.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regarding the lack of peer review. Once preview papers are deposited
> wirh
> >>> @ccess nothing can stop us from using new ways of review and impact
> >>> assessment with the help of the respective scientific communities. So I
> >>> would see a role for the MalariaWorld community in reviewing / ranking
> >>> papers and for our initiative to use new tools for impact assessment
> like
> >>> pageviews, social media buzz etc. I think that the scientific
> communities
> >>> will prove to be very able to review their members work and improve on
> it,
> >>> if our gateway gives them the tools and access to each other and to
> >>> (scientific) information. I am confident that @ccess can be a catalyst
> >>> towards networked scientific communities, a source of information for
> >>> non-scientific communities and a means for communication between
> scientists
> >>> and citizens. That is new compared with for instance ResearchGate.
> >>> When I see that ResearchGate .is very successful, so will we !
> >>>
> >> We only have to generate enthusiasm, commitment and a selection of the
> >> most usefu/ most tractable problems to start from. Then everything else
> will
> >> follow. Yes, we shall get mocked/dismissed by some people to start with
> but
> >> we'll gather others. Wikipedia has done a huge service in showing the
> power
> >> of bottom up
> >>>
> >>> TOM
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter Murray-Rust
> >> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> >> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> >> University of Cambridge
> >> CB2 1EW, UK
> >> +44-1223-763069
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-access mailing list
> > open-access at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120215/ee2d9181/attachment.html>