[Open-access] [open-science] Principles of "Open Access"

Graham Triggs grahamtriggs at gmail.com
Fri Jul 5 20:37:21 UTC 2013

On 4 July 2013 16:43, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> I think it would be useful for this list to create a clear simple guide to
> (Fully) open OA. The BOAI is clear but has been downgraded.

I do agree with this. Imho, subdividing OA into Gold, Green, Libre, Gratis,
etc. is not helpful. Especially when half (or more) of the definitions
remove "open" from "open access".

There is nothing wrong with "free access" - both as a concept and a term.
Free access is nearly as important as open access, and shares the same
values, if not all of the benefits - that we need to ensure that
researchers are not prevented from getting access to published research.
But it should be clear that free is not open.

I believe more is needed, especially on rights and also on WHY we need Open
> Access (I wish there was a new term and maybe we should strive for that).

Or, seeing as "open" is well understood pretty much everywhere else it is
invoked, why not just defend the meaning and chase out the terms that
dilute it? There is no need for it - the alternatives are simply clearer.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20130705/3c48b785/attachment.html>

More information about the open-access mailing list