<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">1. The Green/Gold Open Access (OA) distinction concerns whether it is the author or the publisher that provides the OA.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
2. This distinction was important to mark with clear terms because the conflation of the two roads to OA has practical implications and has been holding up OA progress for a decade and a half.</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">3. The distinction between paid Gold and free Gold is very far from being a straightforward one.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">4. Free Gold can be free (to the author) because the expenses of the Gold journal are covered by subscriptions, subsidies or volunteerism.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">5. The funds for Paid Gold can come from the author's pocket, the author's research grant, the author's institution or the author's funder.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">6. It would be both absurd and gratuitously confusing to mark each of these economic-model differences with a color-code.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div>
<div class="gmail_extra">7. Superfluous extra colors would also obscure the role that the colour-code was invented to perform: distinguishing author-side OA provision from publisher-side OA provision.</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>8. So, please, let's not have <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html">"diamond," "platinum" and "titanium" OA</a>, despite the metallurgical temptations.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>9. They amplify noise instead of pinpointing the signal, just as <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/453-SHERPARoMEO-Publishers-with-Paid-Options-for-Open-Access.html">SHERPA/Romeo</a>'s parti-colored <a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeoinfo.html#colours">Blue/Yellow/Green spectrum</a> (mercifully ignored by almost everyone) does.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>10. OA is about providing Open Access to peer-reviewed journal articles, not about cost-recovery models for OA publishing (Gold OA).</div><div class="gmail_extra" style>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>11. The Gold that publishers are fighting for and that researcher funders are subsidizing (whether "pure" or "hybrid") is paid Gold, not free Gold.</div><div class="gmail_extra" style>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>12. No one knows whether or how free Gold will be sustainable, any more than they know whether or how long subscription publishing can co-exist viably with mandatory Green OA.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>13. So please leave the economic ideology and speculation out of the pragmatics of OA policy making by the research community (institutions and funders).</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>14. Cost-recovery models are the province of publishers (Gold OA).</div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>15. What the research community needs to do is mandate OA provision.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>16. The only OA provision that is entirely in the research community's hands is Green OA.</div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>
And, before you ask, please let's not play into the publishers' hands by colour-coding OA also in terms of the length of the publisher embargo: 3-month OA, 6-month OA, 12-month-OA, 24-month-OA, millennial OA: OA means <i>immediate online access</i>. Anything else is delayed access. (The only quasi-exception is the "<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/839-Publisher-OA-Embargoes,-IDOA-Mandates-and-the-Almost-OA-Button.html">Almost-OA</a>" provided by the author via the institutional repository's email-eprint-request Button when complying with publisher embargoes -- but that too is clearly <i>not OA,</i> which is immediate, free online access.)</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra" style>And on no account should the genuine, substantive distinction between <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html">Gratis OA</a> (free online access) and <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html">Libre OA</a> (free online access plus various re-use rights) be color-coded (with a different shade for every variety of CC license)!</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" style><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E. (2004) <a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/ ">The Access/Impact Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access</a>. Serials Review 30. Shorter version: <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html ">The green and the gold roads to Open Access</a>. <i>Nature Web Focus</i>. </div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:13 PM, LIBLICENSE <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:liblicense@gmail.com" target="_blank">liblicense@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">From: "Beall, Jeffrey" <<a href="mailto:Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu">Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu</a>><br>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:45:20 -0600<br>
<br>
Dear Jean-Claude Guédon:<br>
<br>
There are some, including me, who make the distinction between gold<br>
open-access and platinum open-access.<br>
<br>
Gold = free to reader, author pays article processing charge<br>
<br>
Platinum = free to reader, free to author<br>
<br>
This distinction is important and has value, I think, because it shows<br>
two different funding models for open-access publishing. So I do<br>
believe, as you say, that gold really means author-pay journals.<br>
Conflating the two models under a single appellation initiates<br>
confusion and ambiguity.<br>
<br>
Using the more precise terminology enables clearer communication and<br>
does not semantically lump together two things that are inherently<br>
different.<br>
<br>
Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor<br>
<br>
Scholarly Initiatives Librarian<br>
Auraria Library<br>
University of Colorado Denver<br>
Denver, Colo. 80204 USA<br>
<a href="mailto:jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu">jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Jean-Claude Guédon <<a href="mailto:jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca">jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca</a>><br>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:29:19 -0400<br>
Thank you for this URL. I listened to it and said to myself: only the<br>
French (I was born there) can defend open access with lopsided<br>
arguments...<br>
<br>
Two noted mistakes:<br>
<br>
* PLoS does not practice peer review and relies on comments after<br>
publication !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br>
<br>
* Gold, i.e. OA journals, really means author-pay OA journals<br>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br>
<br>
Of course, in the latter case, many publishers are intent on<br>
propagating this false conflation of Gold and author-pay as it is the<br>
business model they use to preserve their revenue stream in the OA<br>
context.<br>
<br>
The battle for vocabulary and words is also part of the battle for OA.<br>
<br>
Jean-Claude Guédon<br>
<br>
<br>
Le lundi 15 avril 2013 à 16:50 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :<br>
<br>
to the interests of this list. --<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>