<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<br><br><br><font style="" color="#548dd4">I get Peter Suber's points </font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">I mean he is probably right but he is thinking on the readers' side only</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">BUT</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">I am on both side readers' and authors': authors from 4th and 3rd (even 2nd) world countries can hardly fully support the author-side fees...</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">the fact that there are no fee attached to my journal (either on the authors' or readers' side) does not mean that I do not understand the need for economical models (the "author-side fees" for instance).</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">see my "sad" conclusion...</font><br><br>FIRST PETER SUBER<br><br>A 13/01/2011 -0500 11:27, Peter Suber a écrit :<br>Dear Bruno,<br><br>There seem to be two questions here: (1) whether journals that charge author-side fees can be OA, and (2) whether SPARC Europe and the DOAJ are justified in limiting the Seal of Approval to journals that use the CC-BY license. <br><br>My answer is "yes" to both. <br><br>1. While most OA journals charge no author-side fees, and while I want the no-fee model to be more widely recognized, charging author-side fees is completely compatible with OA. (It's *reader*-side fees that would constitute access barriers incompatible with OA.) Charging author-side publication fees is a legitimate business model for OA journals, and is entirely compatible with the public definitions of OA from Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin.<br><br>2. I support the SPARC Europe and DOAJ judgment that the CC-BY license is best license for an OA journal. This judgment is shared, by the way, by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) and SURF. The CC-BY license puts the fewest restrictions on a work, and thereby makes the work as usable and useful as possible. <br><br>I can add that the SPARC Europe and DOAJ Seal of Approval program is not intended to recognize every journal that fits into the definition of OA. It's intended to recognize best practices, and use of the CC-BY license is a much better practice for OA research articles than the use of any more restrictive license. I strongly support the Seal of Approval program and the criteria it uses.<br><br>Please feel free to share my reply with anyone.<br><br> Best wishes,<br> Peter<br><br>Peter Suber<br>Berkman Fellow, Harvard University<br>Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College<br>Senior Researcher, SPARC<br>Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge<br>www.earlham.edu/~peters<br><br><font style="" color="#548dd4">SECOND MY disappointed REPLY </font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">Thank you Peter </font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">That is a bit disappointing on the authors' side</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">I mean ... my colleagues don't worry of giving away all their rights to publish in an Elsevier journal (for instance)</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">they already hardly publish in OA journals</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">they will "never" publish in a OA journal if it is a CC-BY</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">at least they will never publish in mine particularly if it turns to the CC-BY</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">((((Regarding research evaluation - until very recently and with very exceptions* - French CNRS did not want to consider publications in journals where the author paid to be published (which as some meaning particularly considering some commercial practices ...)</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">* for instance with Copernicus publications ... but the "real" reason why they agreed to get these journals ranked is that some CNRS people get a position in their editorial boards))))</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">Back to the topic:</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">Installing such restrictive rules will not encourage people (publishers, societies) to join DOAJ ... </font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">I thought I was doing the best I could, my journal is listed in DOAJ, I posted -more or less regularly- information on the DOAJ content, ... considering the work done and the time spent I am not going to leave DOAJ to protest against this sort of segregation</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">BUT I will not encourage allied journals* to join, to publish their content (it is additional work and does not really pay), to update their data, ...</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">*http://paleopolis.rediris.es/geosciences/</font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4"><br></font><font style="" color="#548dd4">:( Bruno</font><br><br><br> </body>
</html>