[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kiley, Robert <r.kiley at wellcome.ac.uk>wrote:

> I keep hearing this claim that “60% of journals allow immediate,
> unembargoed, self-archiving” and wonder how accurate this.
>
> Although I’m aware of the original source of this dat<http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2011/11/24/60-of-journals-allow-immediate-archiving-of-peer-reviewed-articles-but-it-gets-much-much-better/)>a,
> this blog post is almost 2 years old and I suspect things may have changed.
>
The SHERPA-Romeo statistics
<http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php>are (as far as I know)
current.

And (if you can decipher SHERPA's absurd
colour-code<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=romeo+(colour+OR+color)++blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>,
in which both green and blue mean green!) they indicate that the percentage
of green publishers is 62%.

The percentage of green journals is likely to be higher as most of the
fleet journal publishers are green...

-- or* were* green until the disastrous Finch/RCUK policy (which Robert
Kiley<http://penaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/916-On-Robert-Kiley-Wellcome-Trust-on-Finch-Report-and-RCUK-Mandate.html>and
the Wellcome
Trust<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/945-RCUK-Dont-Follow-the-Wellcome-Trust-OA-Policy-Model!.html>helped
engineer).

That policy gave green publishers the irresistible incentive to adopt a
green OA embargo (under the pretext of "complying" with Finch/RCUK's
policy) and to offer hybrid gold OA in order to cash in on the taxpayer
money that Finch/RCUK "preferred" to squander on paying publishers even
more, over and above what they were paying them already for subscriptions,
under the simplistic Wellcome
slogan<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1042-Some-Reflection-from-Wellcome-Would-be-Welcome.html>that
"publication
costs are part of research
costs<http://www.nature.com/news/uk-open-access-route-too-costly-report-says-1.13705>
."

(Some publishers may perhaps even be making their embargoes *exceed* the
RCUK limit in order to force their authors to pick and pay for Fool's Gold
according to the Finch/RCUK "preference" that Robert Kiley and the Wellcome
Trust have championed.)

> ****
>
> I accept that my cohort is small – but it does include all the major
> publishers (e.g. Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, OUP, NPG, AAS etc).
>
Elsevier<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=elsevier+double++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>and
Springer<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=springer+double++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
have
so far only back-tracked via self-contradictorydouble-talk. To anyone with
the sense to see through the pseudo-legal gibberish, both are still green.

But if not, chalk that up as another triumph for the Welcome Trust and the
Finch Committee...

*Stevan Harnad*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130916/57c6427d/attachment-0001.html