|
Re: Draft IFLA Manifesto on Open Access
|
Peter Suber
|
Mar 31, 2003 17:09 PST
|
--=====================_547934528==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
[These are my comments on the IFLA draft manifesto, which I sent to Alex
Byrne on March 28. His reply will follow shortly. --Peter.]
| | IFLA MANIFESTO ON OPEN ACCESS TO SCHOLARLY LITERATURE AND RESEARCH
DOCUMENTATION
IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions) is committed to ensuring the widest possible access to
information for all peoples in accordance with the principles expressed in
the Glasgow Declaration (see http://www.ifla.org).
|
I recommend using the direct link to the "Glasgow Declaration",
<http://www.ifla.org/faife/policy/iflastat/gldeclar-e.html>. This will
spare curious readers the chore of going to ifla.org and running a search
for it.
| | IFLA declares that comprehensive open access to scholarly literature and
research documentation is vital to the understanding of our world and to
the identification of solutions to global challenges.
|
These are two good reasons to work toward open access. But there are many
other reasons to do so, some of them much closer to the mission of
libraries. Wouldn't IFLA want to mention some of those as well?
| | IFLA acknowledges that the discovery, contention, elaboration and
application of research in all fields will enhance human well being,
progress and sustainability.
|
Minor matter: I would replace "contention" with "debate" or "discussion".
The last clause speaks of the sustainability of human beings, which I like,
although I wonder whether the drafters meant to speak of the sustainability
of progress.
| | The peer reviewed scholarly literature is a vital element in the processes
of research and scholarship. It is supported by a range of research
documentation which includes preprints, technical reports and records of
research data.
|
The "It" starting the second sentence is ambiguous, and might refer to (1)
peer-reviewed literature or (2) the processes of research and scholarship.
| | IFLA notes that the worldwide network of library and information services
provides access to past, present and future scholarly literature and
research documentation; ensures its preservation; assists users in
discovery and use; and educates users to develop appropriate information
literacies.
IFLA advocates the adoption of the following open access principles by all
involved in the recording and dissemination of research including
authors, editors, publishers, libraries and institutions in order to
ensure the widest possible availability of scholarly literature and
research documentation:
1. Acknowledgement and defence of the moral rights of authors,
especially the rights of attribution and integrity.
|
Excellent.
| | 2. Recognition of objective and effective peer review processes to
assure the quality of scholarly literature irrespective of mode of
publication and without distortion to support extraneous purposes such as
confirmation of tenure or promotion of faculty.
|
Excellent.
| | 3. Promotion of measures to facilitate publication of quality assured
scholarly literature and research documentation by researchers and
scholars in developing nations, from indigenous peoples and among those
otherwise disadvantaged.
|
Excellent.
| | 4. Protection under copyright of all scholarly literature and research
documentation for a strictly limited period determined by law for the
benefit of authors followed by succession to the public domain for the
benefit of all peoples.
|
This one *could* be troublesome. It doesn't say that authors should
transfer copyright to journals, and it doesn't say that copyright holders
should insist upon all their rights (rather than waiving some and
consenting to open access). So it's compatible with everything needed for
open access, but it doesn't call for everything needed for open
access. More on this below.
Also note that open access does not require works to be in the public
domain. The copyright holder's consent to unrestricted downloading,
copying, sharing, storing, printing, searching, linking, and crawling can
serve the same function.
Strictly limited copyright terms followed by a transition into the public
domain does benefit open access. However, during the period of copyright
we will have closed rather than open access unless the rights holder
consents to make it open.
| | 5. Strengthening of fair dealing provisions in international copyright
agreements and directives, national laws, and publishing contracts and
licences to ensure unhindered access by other researchers and the general
public.
|
Excellent.
| | 6. Assurance of the availability to all peoples of all scholarly
literature and research documentation which has been designated by its
authors to be made available through preprints, open access journals and
archives, or other means.
|
This principle is vague. The "assurance of availability" might apply even
to very expensive journals. If an assurance of availability means more
than this --like free or affordable access-- then the principle doesn't say
so. Did the authors mean to say "assurance of *open* or *free* availability"?
It's also unclear what it means for some literature to be "designated by
its authors" to be made available through A, B, "or other means" --since
authors will always designate some means or other. Did the IFLA mean to
say "or other *open-access* means"?
| | 7. Implementation of affordable mechanisms to enable access to scholarly
literature and research documentation by the peoples of developing nations
and all who experience information inequality including the disabled and
otherwise disadvantaged.
|
This principle offers the worst-off group merely "affordable mechanisms"
(rather than open access, which is free). Hence, it seems to make
affordability the outer limit of generosity or IFLA recommendation.
If #6 tried to describe what kinds of access should follow upon the
author's decision (or "designation"), then this one seems to describe what
kinds of access should be provided to certain disadvantaged groups,
regardless of what the authors have designated. Hence, it has a bold
implication: that even when authors are *not* designating open access,
disadvantaged people should be assured affordable access. But if this is
what ##6-7 together should be understood to assert, then they need to be
clarified.
In general I stand by the view articulated in the FAQ of the Budapest Open
Access Initiative, <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm>.
"What is the intended impact of BOAI on initiatives to make scholarly
literature affordable rather than free? [Answer:] We hope these
initiatives succeed, because their success will make scholarly literature
more accessible than it is today. However, we believe that the specific
literature on which BOAI focuses, the peer-reviewed research literature in
all disciplines, can and should be entirely free for readers."
| | 8. Inclusion of provisions in law, contracts and licences to ensure
preservation in perpetuity of all scholarly literature and research
documentation in libraries and archives in formats and under conditions
which will ensure enduring availability and useability.
|
A contract or license cannot "ensure" preservation in perpetuity. As I
read these issues, what we need are contracts that "permit" parties to take
steps toward preservation without further permission or payment. For
example, libraries need permission to translate digital content into new
formats and media in order to keep it readable as technology changes. They
need permission to store it indefinitely without periodic payments.
There may be an audience problem here. If #8 is addressed to publishers,
then it should speak of permission. But if it is addressed to libraries,
then it might well be more prescriptive, and urge libraries to "ensure" the
preservation of the material they have permission to preserve.
| | 9. Operation of effective systems by libraries and publishers to ensure
the preservation in perpetuity of all scholarly literature and research
documentation with authenticity and continuing useability guaranteed.
|
This answers one of my questions about #8. Principle #9 clearly asks
libraries and publishers to ensure preservation. But it's still unclear
which group #8 addresses; if publishers, then the "ensure" language
misconstrues the problem.
Perhaps I should have said this as well (about #8): publishers can
"ensure" preservation through their own actions; preservation needn't be
left to libraries. But in that case, the principle should refer to steps
that publishers should take themselves, not to their contracts and licenses
with other parties.
In general, I distinguish open-access issues from preservation issues. But
I think they're both important and support the call for steps in both
directions. But it may confuse matters to suggest that principles #8 and
#9 are principles of open access.
In sum, I think most of the principles above are excellent. Some (esp. #6
and #7) are vague and need clarification. The chief problem, however, is
that the two most important features of open access are missing here. The
first is that open-access literature should be available to
internet-connected readers free of charge. Affordable access may be an
improvement over the status quo, but it does not deserve to be called open
access. The second is that users should have permission to copy, share,
store, print, link, and crawl open-access literature. If the literature is
in the public domain, then this permission is clear; but when it is under
copyright, this permission does not exist without the copyright holder's
consent. Without that consent, there is no open access to copyrighted
literature, and your principles do not call for that consent. In fact, by
calling for copyright without calling for copyright holders to waive some
of their rights, the document implicitly calls for *closed* access for the
period of copyright.
I'm heartened that the IFLA would want to make a public statement
supporting open access. But my reluctant conclusion is that these
principles are not doing that. Since many of us have tried hard to give
the term "open access" a clear definition, this manifesto would dilute that
meaning and mislead readers. I recommend changing the name of what the
document calls for (for example, "Wider Access" or "Enlarged Access") or
strengthening the principles so that they really describe open access.
Best wishes,
Peter
----------
Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy
Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374
Email pet-@earlham.edu
Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
Editor, FOS News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
--=====================_547934528==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
[These are my comments on the IFLA draft manifesto, which I sent to Alex
Byrne on March 28. His reply will follow shortly.
--Peter.]<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><div align="center"><font size=4><b>IFLA
MANIFESTO ON OPEN ACCESS TO SCHOLARLY LITERATURE AND RESEARCH
DOCUMENTATION<br>
</b><br>
</font><br>
</div>
IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions) is committed to ensuring the widest possible access to
information for all peoples in accordance with the principles expressed
in the Glasgow Declaration (see
<font color="#0000FF"><u>http://www.ifla.org</u></font>).
</blockquote><br>
I recommend using the direct link to the "Glasgow Declaration",
<<a href="http://www.ifla.org/faife/policy/iflastat/gldeclar-e.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.ifla.org/faife/policy/iflastat/gldeclar-e.html</a>>.
This will spare curious readers the chore of going to ifla.org and
running a search for it.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>IFLA declares that comprehensive
open access to scholarly literature and research documentation is vital
to the understanding of our world and to the identification of solutions
to global challenges. </blockquote><br>
These are two good reasons to work toward open access. But there
are many other reasons to do so, some of them much closer to the mission
of libraries. Wouldn't IFLA want to mention some of those as
well?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>IFLA acknowledges that the
discovery, contention, elaboration and application of research in all
fields will enhance human well being, progress and sustainability.
</blockquote><br>
Minor matter: I would replace "contention" with
"debate" or "discussion". <br><br>
The last clause speaks of the sustainability of human beings, which I
like, although I wonder whether the drafters meant to speak of the
sustainability of progress.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>The peer reviewed scholarly
literature is a vital element in the processes of research and
scholarship. It is supported by a range of research documentation
which includes preprints, technical reports and records of research
data. </blockquote><br>
The "It" starting the second sentence is ambiguous, and might
refer to (1) peer-reviewed literature or (2) the processes of research
and scholarship. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>IFLA notes that the worldwide
network of library and information services provides access to past,
present and future scholarly literature and research documentation;
ensures its preservation; assists users in discovery and use; and
educates users to develop appropriate information literacies.<br>
<br>
IFLA advocates the adoption of the following open access principles by
all involved in the recording and dissemination of research
including authors, editors, publishers, libraries and institutions
in order to ensure the widest possible availability of scholarly
literature and research documentation:
<dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
<dd>1.<x-tab> </x-tab></font>Acknowledgement and defence
of the moral rights of authors, especially the rights of attribution and
integrity. </blockquote>
</dl><br>
Excellent.<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
<dd>2.<x-tab> </x-tab></font>Recognition of objective
and effective peer review processes to assure the quality of scholarly
literature irrespective of mode of publication and without distortion to
support extraneous purposes such as confirmation of tenure or promotion
of faculty. </blockquote>
</dl><br>
Excellent.<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
<dd>3.<x-tab> </x-tab></font>Promotion of measures to
facilitate publication of quality assured scholarly literature and
research documentation by researchers and scholars in developing nations,
from indigenous peoples and among those otherwise disadvantaged.
</blockquote>
</dl><br>
Excellent.<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
<dd>4.<x-tab> </x-tab></font>Protection under copyright
of all scholarly literature and research documentation for a strictly
limited period determined by law for the benefit of authors followed by
succession to the public domain for the benefit of all
peoples.</blockquote>
</dl><br>
This one *could* be troublesome. It doesn't say that authors should
transfer copyright to journals, and it doesn't say that copyright holders
should insist upon all their rights (rather than waiving some and
consenting to open access). So it's compatible with everything
needed for open access, but it doesn't call for everything needed for
open access. More on this below.<br><br>
Also note that open access does not require works to be in the public
domain. The copyright holder's consent to unrestricted downloading,
copying, sharing, storing, printing, searching, linking, and crawling can
serve the same function. <br><br>
Strictly limited copyright terms followed by a transition into the public
domain does benefit open access. However, during the period of
copyright we will have closed rather than open access unless the rights
holder consents to make it open.<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
<dd>5.<x-tab> </x-tab></font>Strengthening of fair
dealing provisions in international copyright agreements and directives,
national laws, and publishing contracts and licences to ensure unhindered
access by other researchers and the general public. </blockquote>
</dl><br>
Excellent.<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
<dd>6.<x-tab> </x-tab></font>Assurance of the
availability to all peoples of all scholarly literature and research
documentation which has been designated by its authors to be made
available through preprints, open access journals and archives, or other
means.</blockquote>
</dl><br>
This principle is vague. The "assurance of availability"
might apply even to very expensive journals. If an assurance of
availability means more than this --like free or affordable access-- then
the principle doesn't say so. Did the authors mean to say
"assurance of *open* or *free* availability"?<br><br>
It's also unclear what it means for some literature to be
"designated by its authors" to be made available through A, B,
"or other means" --since authors will always designate some
means or other. Did the IFLA mean to say "or other
*open-access* means"?<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
<dd>7.<x-tab> </x-tab></font>Implementation of
affordable mechanisms to enable access to scholarly literature and
research documentation by the peoples of developing nations and all who
experience information inequality including the disabled and otherwise
disadvantaged.</blockquote>
</dl><br>
This principle offers the worst-off group merely "affordable
mechanisms" (rather than open access, which is free). Hence,
it seems to make affordability the outer limit of generosity or IFLA
recommendation. <br><br>
If #6 tried to describe what kinds of access should follow upon the
author's decision (or "designation"), then this one seems to
describe what kinds of access should be provided to certain disadvantaged
groups, regardless of what the authors have designated. Hence, it
has a bold implication: that even when authors are *not*
designating open access, disadvantaged people should be assured
affordable access. But if this is what ##6-7 together should be
understood to assert, then they need to be clarified.<br><br>
In general I stand by the view articulated in the FAQ of the Budapest
Open Access Initiative,
<<a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm" eudora="autourl">http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm</a>>.
<dl>
<dd>"What is the intended impact of BOAI on initiatives to make
scholarly literature affordable rather than free? [Answer:]
We hope these initiatives succeed, because their success will make
scholarly literature more accessible than it is today. However, we
believe that the specific literature on which BOAI focuses, the
peer-reviewed research literature in all disciplines, can and should be
entirely free for readers." <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
<dd>8.<x-tab> </x-tab></font>Inclusion of provisions in
law, contracts and licences to ensure preservation in perpetuity of all
scholarly literature and research documentation in libraries and archives
in formats and under conditions which will ensure enduring availability
and useability.</blockquote>
</dl><br>
A contract or license cannot "ensure" preservation in
perpetuity. As I read these issues, what we need are contracts that
"permit" parties to take steps toward preservation without
further permission or payment. For example, libraries need
permission to translate digital content into new formats and media in
order to keep it readable as technology changes. They need
permission to store it indefinitely without periodic payments.<br><br>
There may be an audience problem here. If #8 is addressed to
publishers, then it should speak of permission. But if it is
addressed to libraries, then it might well be more prescriptive, and urge
libraries to "ensure" the preservation of the material they
have permission to preserve.<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>
<dl><font face="Times New Roman, Times">
<dd>9.<x-tab> </x-tab></font>Operation of effective
systems by libraries and publishers to ensure the preservation in
perpetuity of all scholarly literature and research documentation with
authenticity and continuing useability guaranteed.</blockquote>
</dl><br>
This answers one of my questions about #8. Principle #9 clearly
asks libraries and publishers to ensure preservation. But it's
still unclear which group #8 addresses; if publishers, then the
"ensure" language misconstrues the problem. <br><br>
Perhaps I should have said this as well (about #8): publishers can
"ensure" preservation through their own actions; preservation
needn't be left to libraries. But in that case, the principle
should refer to steps that publishers should take themselves, not to
their contracts and licenses with other parties.<br><br>
In general, I distinguish open-access issues from preservation
issues. But I think they're both important and support the call for
steps in both directions. But it may confuse matters to suggest
that principles #8 and #9 are principles of open access. <br><br>
In sum, I think most of the principles above are excellent. Some
(esp. #6 and #7) are vague and need clarification. The chief
problem, however, is that the two most important features of open access
are missing here. The first is that open-access literature should
be available to internet-connected readers free of charge.
Affordable access may be an improvement over the status quo, but it does
not deserve to be called open access. The second is that users
should have permission to copy, share, store, print, link, and crawl
open-access literature. If the literature is in the public domain,
then this permission is clear; but when it is under copyright, this
permission does not exist without the copyright holder's consent.
Without that consent, there is no open access to copyrighted literature,
and your principles do not call for that consent. In fact, by
calling for copyright without calling for copyright holders to waive some
of their rights, the document implicitly calls for *closed* access for
the period of copyright. <br><br>
I'm heartened that the IFLA would want to make a public statement
supporting open access. But my reluctant conclusion is that these
principles are not doing that. Since many of us have tried hard to
give the term "open access" a clear definition, this manifesto
would dilute that meaning and mislead readers. I recommend changing
the name of what the document calls for (for example, "Wider
Access" or "Enlarged Access") or strengthening the
principles so that they really describe open access.<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Best wishes,<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Peter<br><br>
<br><br>
<hr>
<font color="#808080">Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy <br>
Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374<br>
Email pet-@earlham.edu <br>
Web
<a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters" eudora="autourl">http://www.earlham.edu/~peters</a><br><br>
Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter<br>
<a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/" eudora="autourl">http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/</a><br>
Editor, FOS News blog<br>
<a href="http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html</a></font>
</html>
--=====================_547934528==_.ALT--
|
|
 |
|
