[GOAL] OA Chromophilia

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Beall, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Beall at ucdenver.edu
> wrote:

> Dear Prof. Harnad:
>
> Earlier when I highlighted the distinction between gold and platinum
> open-access, you indicated (and your followers confirmed) that we already
> had enough colors of open access and that adding new ones would only serve
> to confuse the matter. Now I see you are using the term "black open
> access," a term that is new to me. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thus, I think your usage gives license to everyone using the term
> "platinum open-access," which is published research that is free to the
> reader and free to the author.
>

Dear Jeffery,

I am certainly not introducing the term "Black OA"!

The term was used in the Sigmetrics query by Bosman (and that's certainly
the first I'd heard of it!).

I re-used his term on the fly in replying to Boxman on that (one) occasion
-- as a place-holder for the category he had in mind (the same way I would
use "the Tuesday OA increase" on the fly if someone were posting a query
about a special blip that happened on that Tuesday).

*All Green OA is free to the reader and free to the author*. Only (some)
Gold OA costs extra to the author (or the author's institution) -- and even
that, not in the majority of cases (since the majority of Gold OA journals
in DOAJ do not charge the author); hence* cost to the author was never a
part of the definition of OA, either Green or Gold*.

"Platinum OA" hence continues to be a completely unnecessary and
gratuitously confusing and conflationary color-term. The category is
already fully and clearly covered by Green OA (author self-archiving).

What Bosman meant by "Black OA" (a term I would certainly never use or
recommend beyond that one local exchange) is a mashup of two distinct
potential conditions:

(B1) *Green OA provided before a publisher embargo has expired*. (This
arbitrary subcategory of Green OA certainly does not deserve a color-term
of its own; it would cause endless, gratuitous confusion to call
self-archived Green OA articles "Black" OA until the publisher embargo
expired!)

(B2) An article made freely accessibly by *some unauthorized party -- i.e.,
someone other than the author or the publisher*. This is simply 3rd party
bootleg (unless sanctioned by author and publish), and it does the OA
movement no good whatsoever to tar it with this unnecessary and illegal
method of making research freely accessible to all. (We could also have had
"disappearing-ink OA,"  for articles made accessible just long enough to
read once, then they self-destruct. The colour options are limitless, if
one is bent on colorizing…)

(I have the greatest respect for Aaron Swartz's goals, but what he was
doing and advocating was, in part, piracy, not
OA<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/828-The-JSTOR-downloading-caper-Open-Access-is-creator-give-away,-not-consumer-rip-off.html>.
The quintessence of both the practical and the principled case for OA is
that *OA is *author give-away; it is not -- and does need to be -- consumer
rip-off.<http://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr#fp=4bcdfc571fb2a4a7&q=harnad+give-away+rip-off>
The
face validity of OA is that it is researchers making *their own
findings*accessible free for all,
*because they want to* -- not because someone else is doing it for them,
let alone against their will.)

So my call (for what it's worth) is "no" to both "Platinum OA" and "Black
OA."

(Ditto for "Diamond OA" and "Titanium OA," all of
which<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-On-Diamond-OA,-Platinum-OA,-Titanium-OA,-and-Overlay-Journal-OA,-Again.html>
have
been mooted by some chromerasts: The purpose of coining the original OA
color terms was to lexicalize the conceptually and strategically crucial
core distinction between author-provided and publisher-provided OA
(formerly BOAI-1 and BOAI-2). The rest of the orgy of colors and base
metals inspired by the chrononomic turn simply blur the crucial
distinctions that are needed for clear thinking, coherent strategy and
progress in OA.)

Best wishes,

Stevan

> ****
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* Monday, August 26, 2013 5:45 AM
> *To:* ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
> *Cc:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: OA Growth Monitoring Needs a Google Data-Mining
> Exemption
>
> On 2013-08-26, at 6:12 AM, "Bosman, J.M."  (Utrech University Library)
> wrote (in SIGMETRICS):
>
> ****
>
> Do you know..****
>
> 1)   How many of the freely available full text versions are “black OA”,
> i.e. shared against copyright? I know many examples of that in for instance
> ResearchGate, that is indexed by Google Scholar….
>
> **
>
> There are technically two kinds of "Black OA":
>
> (B1) Third-party piracy -- X posting the articles of Y. This is very
> unlikely to be in Institutional Repositories.****
>
> ** **
>
> (B2) Authors self-archiving their own articles (Green OA), ignoring any
> publisher embargo (most of Arxiv would have been B2 for years, until the
> publishers altered their policy and endorsed immediate, unembargoed Green
> OA self-archiving).****
>
> ** **
>
> We will soon have separate data for Green OA growth in UK institutional
> repositories (mandated and unmandated).****
>
> ** **
>
> (Let others count the proportion of that Green OA that is B2: I'm more
> interested in burying publishers' damaging and unjustified access embargoes
> than in praising, enforcing or reinforcing them!))****
>
> ** **
>
> But let it be noted that access provided after an embargo is Delayed
> Access (DA), not OA, which is immediate (and permanent). ****
>
> ** **
>
> In many if not most fields of research the critical growth period for new
> research uptake is within the first year of publication (if not earlier,
> for preprints), although this may only be expressed and measurable as
> citations somewhat later. This is the research progress that (some)
> publishers are trying to suppress in order to sustain their subscription
> revenues at all costs (to research) by trying to embargo Green OA
> self-archiving. ****
>
> ** **
>
> (It is ironic also, and instructive, that in fields where the critical
> growth period for new research uptake is longer than a year, publishers are
> trying to impose even longer embargoes on Green OA self-archiving.)****
>
> ** **
>
> The publishing tail, still trying to keep wagging the research dog, come
> what may...****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> 2)   To what extent [can] the growth of available OA versions be explained
> by increasing numbers of green OA versions of which the embargo period has
> ended and to what extent to more general acceptance of OA by scholars? It
> seems likely that the first effect will be more pronounced 6-24 months
> after a period of exceptional growth of self-archiving in repositories etc.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> The empirical part of question 2 would be answered by the data that answer
> question 1. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The rest seems circular: ****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, by definition, OA growth during embargoes will take place during
> embargoes, not after, whereas OA growth after embargoes have elapsed will
> take place after embargoes have elapsed, not before. ****
>
> ** **
>
> And yes, whatever is actually being done is a sign of "acceptance" of
> doing it (by authors, I should think, since users looking for articles are
> ready to accept whatever they can find, at least for Gratis OA (read-only),
> if not Libre OA! (read-write).****
>
> ** **
>
> Stevan Harnad****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Sean Burns  wrote:****
>
> Although a harvester would be very nice, sampling theory and some
> manual work does the trick too... [in my dissertation] I took the sample in
> May 2010 and collected bibliometric and other relevant data from Google
> Scholar in July 2010, July 2011, and July 2012.****
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:58 AM* *Stevan Harnad wrote:****
>
> ** **
>
> Yes, hand-sampling can and does provide valuable information. ****
>
>  ****
>
> But, as I said, for systematic ongoing monitoring of the global
> time-course of OA growth across institutions, disciplines and
> nations, hand-sampling is excruciatingly difficult and
> time-consuming, holding research that could greatly benefit the worldwide
> research community (as well as Google and Google Scholar) to a scale and
> pace that is more suitable for a doctoral dissertation.****
>
>  ****
>
> Historically speaking, if a few projects designed to monitor the ongoing
> global growth and distribution of OA were allowed to do machine data-mining
> in Google space, the growth rate of OA would be dramatically accelerated
> (and thereby also the size and functionality of Google Scholar space).****
>
>  ****
>
> Otherwise, efforts to enrich Google Scholar space are relegated to the
> same fate as attempts to enrich vendors, spammers, napsters or phishermen.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> Stevan Harnad****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>
> > This is a response to a query regarding Eric Archambault's report on
> > OA Growth by Adam G Dunn in Science Insider: "I find it difficult to
> > believe that the authors of the study managed to create a harvester
> > that could identify and verify the pdfs linked to by Google Scholar
> > when Google Scholar actively blocks IP addresses when they identify
> > crawling."
> >
> > Our own "harvester" attempts to gather the all-important data on OA
> > growth were blocked by Google.
> >
> > It is completely understandable and justifiable that Google shields
> > its increasingly vital global database and search mechanisms from the
> > countless and incessant worldwide attempts at exploitation by
> > commercial interests, spammers, and malware that could bring Google to
> > its knees if not rigorously and relentlessly blocked.
> >
> > But in the very special (and tiny) case of scientific research
> > articles it would not only be a great help to the worldwide research
> > community but to Google (and Google Scholar) itself if Google granted
> > special individual exemptions for important international studies like
> > Eric Archambault's, which was commissioned by the European Union to
> > monitor the global growth rate of open access to research.
> >
> > Google and Google Scholar would become all the richer as research
> > databases if data like Eric's (and our own) were not made so
> > excruciatingly difficult and time-consuming to gather by Google's
> > blanket blockage of automated data-mining.
> >
> >
> > (We do not trawl books, so Google's agreements with publishers are not
> > violated or at issue in any way. We just want to trawl for articles
> > whose metadata match the the metadata from Web of Science or SCOPUS
> > and have been made freely accessible on the web; nor do we want their
> > full-texts: just to check whether they are there!)
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> >****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130826/88cb77cc/attachment-0001.html