[GOAL] Re: Paid Gold vs. Free Gold

[Alma Swan]

Yes, here are some:
http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=553&It
emid=378

Wolters Kluwer bought Medknow a couple of years ago but has (so far)
retained its subscription-plus-immediate-free-access model:
http://www.medknow.com/journals.asp

Alma Swan


On 19/04/2013 06:52, "Jan Velterop" <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:

> Are there examples of such "subscription journals that make their online
> version freely accessible online (immediately upon publication)."
> 
> Who would subscribe, and what would a subscription entail?
> 
> Jan Velterop
> 
> On 19 Apr 2013, at 05:16, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon
>> <jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> The reference to free Gold journals covered by subscriptions is not clear to
>>> me. Is this a reference to SCOAP3?
>> 
>> It's a reference to all subscription journals that make their online version
>> freely accessible online (immediately upon publication).
>> 
>> (No, SCOAP3 is a premature and unnecessary post-hoc consortial "membership"
>> scheme that I think will not prove sustainable. The HEP fields have already
>> provided near 100% (Green) OA for 20 years, un-mandated. What's needed next
>> is for institutions and funders to mandate that all other disciplines do
>> likewise.)
>> 
>>  Stevan Harnad
>> 
>>> Le jeudi 18 avril 2013 à 07:45 +0100, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
>>>>  1. The Green/Gold Open Access (OA) distinction concerns whether it is the
>>>> author or the publisher that provides the OA.
>>>>  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.
>>>>  3. The distinction between paid Gold and free Gold is very far from being
>>>> a straightforward one.
>>>>  4. Free Gold can be free (to the author) because the expenses of the Gold
>>>> journal are covered by subscriptions, subsidies or volunteerism.
>>>> 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.
>>>>  6. It would be both absurd and gratuitously confusing to mark each of
>>>> these economic-model differences with a color-code.
>>>>  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.
>>>>  8. So, please, let's not have "diamond," "platinum" and "titanium" OA
>>>> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html> , despite the
>>>> metallurgical temptations.
>>>>  9. They amplify noise instead of pinpointing the signal, just as
>>>> SHERPA/Romeo 
>>>> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/453-SHERPARoMEO-Publishe
>>>> rs-with-Paid-Options-for-Open-Access.html> 's parti-colored
>>>> Blue/Yellow/Green spectrum <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeoinfo.html#colours>
>>>> (mercifully ignored by almost everyone) does.
>>>>  10. OA is about providing Open Access to peer-reviewed journal articles,
>>>> not about cost-recovery models for OA publishing (Gold OA).
>>>>  11. The Gold that publishers are fighting for and that researcher funders
>>>> are subsidizing (whether "pure" or "hybrid") is paid Gold, not free Gold.
>>>>  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.
>>>>  13. So please leave the economic ideology and speculation out of the
>>>> pragmatics of OA policy making by the research community (institutions and
>>>> funders).
>>>>  14. Cost-recovery models are the province of publishers (Gold OA).
>>>> 15. What the research community needs to do is mandate OA provision.
>>>> 16. The only OA provision that is entirely in the research community's
>>>> hands is Green OA.
>>>>  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
>>>> immediate online access. Anything else is delayed access. (The only
>>>> quasi-exception is the "Almost-OA
>>>> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/839-Publisher-OA-Embargo
>>>> es,-IDOA-Mandates-and-the-Almost-OA-Button.html> " provided by the author
>>>> via the institutional repository's email-eprint-request Button when
>>>> complying with publisher embargoes -- but that too is clearly not OA, which
>>>> is immediate, free online access.)
>>>>  And on no account should the genuine, substantive distinction between
>>>> Gratis OA <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html>
>>>> (free online access) and Libre OA
>>>> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html>  (free
>>>> online access plus various re-use rights) be color-coded (with a different
>>>> shade for every variety of CC license)!
>>>>  Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y,
>>>> Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact
>>>> Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access
>>>> <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/> . Serials Review 30. Shorter
>>>> version: The green and the gold roads to Open Access
>>>> <http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html> . Nature Web
>>>> Focus. 
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130419/94e5a99d/attachment-0001.html