In the last post (Reply from softCon on Spectra and “open access”) I report how ICSU (CODATA) use the phrase “open access”:
Here are some quotations from the ICSU report:
“…Full and open access” to data implies equitable,
non-discriminatory access to all data that are of
value for science. It does not necessarily equate to
immediate access or ‘free of cost’ at the point of
delivery, although this is certainly the ideal in many
situations, particularly with regard to publicly
funded data. Data should be made available with
minimal delay but a short ‘privileged access’ period
for original data producers may be justified in some
situations. Excessive charging for data that is by
definition discriminatory against some scientists is
clearly contrary to the principle of full and open
access but some cost-recovery is not necessarily
excluded…”
“…There are several economic models for providing
scientists with access to data for research and education.
They include, among others, (1) free and open access to
research data by scientists, with financial support for data
dissemination and preservation assumed by others,
including government science agencies and private
foundations; (2) open access to scientific data for research
and education for the cost of reproduction (that is,
recovering the operational costs of data dissemination);
(3) free and open access to metadata, and cost-recovery
pricing for data (or data licenses) in order to support the
full data infrastructure. When this last approach is
employed by a commercial company, the financial charges
for data must be sufficient to recover all investment costs
and to make a profit for investors. An important variation
on this includes licensing for scientists to use specific
bodies of data at reduced cost…”
PMR: As as said earlier I have considerable respect for CODATA and if this is their position I know they have laboured hard over preparing it – the content, the intent and the phrasing. So they have chosen “open access” as a descriptive phrase and used it several times. However they make it quite clear that this does not necessarily mean “toll-free”.
Whereas in another branch of ICSU, ICSTI it is very clear that “open access” is used in the sense of BOAI.
Oh dear.
We have a major and committed organisation using phrases in a completely confusing way. So it is not, perhaps, surprising that we do not always make ourselves clear to each other. And occasionally world views collide and raise the heat of debate.
What should we do? I think we have to be more precise about what we are talking about. We need to devise labels that we understand. And that will be the theme of later posts here. But I wonder if CODATA/CSPR might not consider removing the phrase “full and open access” from its sponsored pay-to-view databases.