[GOAL] Articles, Books, OA & OA Mandates

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2013-11-18, at 7:06 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblicense at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> From: Colin Steele <Colin.Steele at anu.edu.au>
> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:25:23 +0000
> 
> Stevan perhaps doesn't realise that the horse has bolted over the
> alleged hurdles in some parts of the world. Open access monographs are
> increasingly prevalent in a number of forms. Relatively few authors
> get any or significant royalties in Australia from academic monographs
> and publishing in open access or hybrid open access presses is
> growing. The Australian Research Council also has included monographs
> in its 2013 policy, although the implications of this will not be felt
> until current research is completed around 2016 /2017.  Best Colin

No bolted horse. Book authors, just like journal article authors, have been 
able to make their texts free online (OA) if they wished to ever since the advent
of the online era.

It's just that most don't (mostly because they are afraid of their publishers:
afraid they won't get published if they do -- or that they may even be sued).

But whereas both book and article authors sometimes do it of their own
accord, it is true of all journal article authors, but not true of all book
authors (for a variety of reasons) that all of them want to make their
texts free online (OA). 

That's why Green OA self-archiving mandates are needed: to embolden
authors to make their texts OA. All article authors welcome it and most will
comply willingly. But does anyone have the faintest idea of the statistics
for book authors?

Exceptions do not make a rule.

That said, an immediate-deposit mandate with a closed-access option
fits all (acadamic) authors, whether of articles or of books.

Stevan Harnad


> 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Colin Steele
> Emeritus Fellow
> College of Arts and Social Sciences
> The Australian National University
> Canberra ACT 0200 Australia
> E: colin.steele at anu.edu.au
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> On 2013-11-17, at 2:27 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblicense at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>> From: Sandy Thatcher <sgt3 at psu.edu>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:02:15 -0600
>> 
>> Why should Green OA not apply to books if and when the authors are
>> receiving no royalty payments? What difference is there in the
>> intellectual content that justifies treating them any differently? If
>> money is not involved as a reward to authors, why should they not be
>> under the same mandate as journal article authors? It seems artificial
>> to create this digital divide between books and journals. Both
>> contribute to the advance of knowledge, and access to both is
>> important.
> 
> One thing at a time, Sandy: Green mandates have not yet prevailed for
> journal articles,where the case is more clearcut and exception-free.
> (Let's not, like Stephen Leacock's fabled horseman, jump on a horse
> "and gallop off in all directions" (articles, books, data, software,
> Green, Gold, CC-BY.)
> 
> There is one priority, and it will usher in all the rest: mandate
> Green for journal articles (Liège model
> immediate-institutional-deposit, whether or not embargoed, as a
> condition for funding, employment, evaluation).
> 
> Do that, and we'll soon have 100% OA for articles, and then all the
> rest will follow too.
> 
> Keep running off in all directions, as we've been doing for 10 years
> now, and we'll keep getting nowhere, fast.
> 
> A word to the wise, from the wizened...
> 
> Chrs, Stevan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131118/9884f4a9/attachment-0001.html