[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues

Fri Aug 14 17:16:34 BST 2015

1. Green OA means *OA provided by the author* (usually by self-archiving
the refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository)

2. Gold OA means OA *provided by the journal* (often for a publication fee)

3. Gratis OA means free online access.

4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights

There is no "Platinum" OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms
(of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy
[the latter not to be confused with "gratis"])

After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop
fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it...

Stevan Harnad,
Erstwhile Archivangelist

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Beall, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Beall at ucdenver.edu
> wrote:

> For the record, some also use the term "platinum open access," which
> refers to open-access publications for which the authors are not charged
> (no charge to the author and no charge to the reader). Using this term
> brings great clarity to discussions of open-access journals and author
> fees. Using "gold" to refer both to journals that charge authors (gold) and
> those that do not charge authors (platinum) leads to confusion, ambiguity,
> and misunderstanding.
>
> Some have abused the term "gold open access" to promote open access,
> proclaiming, for example, that "most peer-reviewed open access journals
> charge no fees at all." [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012
> study that examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a
> limited cohort, so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and
> should not, be drawn from it.
>
> Jeffrey Beall
>
> [1].
> http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of Danny Kingsley
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM
> To: goal at eprints.org
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
>
> Thanks Helene,
>
> Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which because I put the
> terms in a different order.
>
> Gold open access is 'born' open access - because it is published open in
> an open access journal (with or without a cost), or in a hybrid journal
> where the remainder of the journal remains under subscription (always
> incurs a cost). There are many, many times that the terms 'gold open
> access' has been taken to mean 'pay for open access'. Publishers of course
> have done little to dissuade this impression.
>
> Green open access is 'secondary' open access because it is published in a
> traditional manner (usually a susbcription journal) and a copy of the work
> is placed in a repository - institutional or subject.
>
> I hope that is a bit clearer. I agree it would not be easy to change. But
> we all used to call things preprints and postprints. That really made no
> sense because post-prints were not yet printed. We do not use those terms
> any more, not in the UK anyway. We use the terms Submitted Manuscript,
> Author's Accepted Manuscript (AAM) and Version of Record (VoR).
>
> Regards,
>
> Danny
>
> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> > scrubbed...
> > URL:
> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150814/8a9
> > 4cdff/attachment-0001.html
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:28:01 +0200
> > From: H?l?ne.Bosc <hbosc-tchersky at orange.fr>
> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
> > To: "Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)"
> >       <goal at eprints.org>
> > Message-ID: <8A81FFDC57274D9287431EE2740BA515 at PCdeHelene>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in changing OA
> names!
> > But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it has been
> > adopted for years now by all institutions, for example in European
> > reports, since 2006. See the last one in June 2015 :
> > http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-informati
> > on
> >
> > Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as Open Access.
> But the difficulty will be to get the change worldwide.
> >
> > Nicolas Pettiaux, for example proposed in a previous mail, "Libre"
> instead of "Open Access"!
> >
> > Therefore mixing his idea with your option, "Born Open Access" and
> > "Secondary Open Access" could become "Born Libre" and "Trying to get
> > Libre"... ;-)
> >
> > BTW, I am not sure that I have well understood what means Green and what
> means Gold in your proposition!
> >
> > We could play on this list to find best definition and vote for it! But
> the aim of Open Access is not to find the best OA word for 2015, then for
> 2016 and for 2020! The aim is to stay clear for all stake holders, at the
> time of important political decisions are taken. Policy makers seem to have
> understood what is Green and what is Gold. They need only to have more
> details on the true Gold and Green roads which really conduct to OA.
> >
> > To be efficient today, we just need to repeat what is precisely Green or
> Gold, and how to get it, in each publication, conference, blog  and forum,
> as Stevan Harnad and Jean-Claude Gu?don do it for years now.
> >
> > H?l?ne Bosc
> >    ----- Original Message -----
> >    From: Danny Kingsley
> >    To: goal at eprints.org
> >    Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 6:56 PM
> >    Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
> >
> >
> >    Hi all,
> >
> >    There is some appetite it seems for looking at definitions at the
> moment. In the last couple of weeks I have tweeted about the following:
> >
> >      a.. COAR has a 'Resource Type Vocabulary Draft' - standard naming
> of items in repositories available for comment -
> https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/deliverables/
> >      b.. Open Research Glossary' so we can all be more informed about
> vastly complex topic 'Open Scholarship' -
> http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/2015/07/14/the-open-research-glossary-round-2/
> >      c.. 'We hope to build a common dictionary of terms about open
> access to facilitate sharing of information' http://
> http://dictionary.casrai.org/Open_Access_APC_Report
> >    My issue is with the terms 'green' and 'gold' which are entirely
> arbitrary. The main problem I have is that 'gold' implies 'the best' and it
> implies 'expensive' and it is not necessarily either.
> >
> >    If we have an option I think we should refer to these two routes to
> OA as 'Born Open Access' and 'Secondary Open Access'. Considerably more
> understandable to the external audience.
> >
> >    Danny
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150814/da4ca230/attachment-0001.html 