[GOAL] Re: The OA Interviews: Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado Denver

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Gold OA will not get in the way of Green OA if it is explained
correctly; and forfeiting gold OA will do more harm to the OA movement
than the harm gold OA could ever and putatively make to green OA.

If, among OA advocates, we could get this behind us, we could achieve
four important results:

1. We would be far more united, and, therefore, more powerful;

2. We could present a better, clearer, definition of acceptable OA that
would clearly spell out what green and gold OA mean, and thus could
fight back more effectively against obfuscating strategies that are
thrown in the path of OA by all kinds of opponents;

3. We could begin to imagine how green and gold OA can support and
reinforce each other.

4. Finally, we would find it easier to dispel the false notion that OA
is only gold OA, an error made even worse when gold OA is equated with
author-pay schemes as if science publishing, while requiring financial
support, could not imagine it outside a commercial scheme of some sort.

This said, and very loudly this time:


     1. Let me reiterate that I am not happy with author-pay schemes
        even though I believe PLoS is doing a great job on a number of
        fronts crucial for OA. 
     2. Let me say that hybrid journals are commercial tricks imagined
        to increase revenue streams from all possible sources,
        including, this time, funders. They should be rejected outright.
     3. Mandating green OA is fundamental and all funders should move to
        do so, including with research results that appear in book form,
        as is often the case in SHS.


Jean-Claude Guédon


Le mercredi 11 juillet 2012 à 16:25 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> GOLD FEVER AND FINCH FOLLIES
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest risk from Gold OA (and it's already a reality) is that it
> will get in
> 
> the way of the growth of Green OA, and hence the growth of OA itself. 
> That's Gold Fever: Most people assume that OA means Gold OA, and don't
> realize that the fastest, surest and (extra-)cost-free way to 100% OA
> is to
> provide (and mandate) Green OA.
> 
> 
> The second biggest risk (likewise already a reality, if the Finch
> Follies
> are Followed) is that Gold Fever  makes sluggish, gullible
> researchers, 
> their funders, their governments and even their poor impecunious
> universities
> get lured into paying for pre-emptive Gold OA (while still paying for
> subscriptions) 
> instead of providing and mandating Green OA at no extra cost.
> 
> 
> The risk of creating a market for junk Gold OA journals is only the
> third of the Gold OA risk factors (but it's already a reality too).
> 
> 
> Gold OA's time will come. But it is not now. A proof of principle was
> fine, to refute the canard that peer review is only possible on the
> subscription model.
> 
> 
> But paying for pre-emptive Gold OA now, instead of mandating and 
> providing Green OA globally first will turn out to be one of the more 
> foolish things our sapient species has done to date (though by far 
> not the worst).
> 
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 
> 
> On 2012-07-11, at 3:48 PM, Richard Poynder wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > Jeffrey Beall, a metadata librarian at the University of Colorado
> > Denver, maintains a list of what he calls “predatory publishers”.
> > That is, publishers who, as Beall puts it, “unprofessionally exploit
> > the gold open-access model for their own profit.” Amongst other
> > things, this can mean that papers are subjected to little or no peer
> > review before they are published.
> >  
> > Currently, Beall’s blog list of predatory publishers lists over 100
> > separate companies, and 38 independent journals. And the list is
> > growing by 3 to 4 new publishers each week.
> >  
> > Beall’s opening salvo against predatory publishers came in 2009,
> > when he published a review of the OA publisher Bentham Open for The
> > Charleston Advisor. Since then, he has written further articles on
> > the topic, and has been featured twice in The Chronicle of Higher
> > Education.
> >  
> > His work on predatory publishers has caused Beall to become
> > seriously concerned about the risks attached to gold OA. And he is
> > surprised at how little attention these risks get from the research
> > community. As he puts it, “I am dismayed that most discussions of
> > gold open-access fail to include the quality problems I have
> > documented. Too many OA commenters look only at the theory and
> > ignore the practice. We must ‘maintain the integrity of the academic
> > record’, and I am doubtful that gold open-access is the best
> > long-term way to accomplish that.”
> >  
> > An interview with Jeffrey Beall is available here:
> >  
> > http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-interviews-jeffrey-beall-university.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120711/6a9eda81/attachment-0001.html