[GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
Jean-Claude Guédon
jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca
Fri Aug 14 22:19:12 BST 2015
Many thanks for all this, Marc.
DOAJ is doing all it can to provide solid information for over 10,000
legitimate titles. I continue to think that much of the vetting work
could be organized as a distributed task by libraries all over the
world. it is just a question of establishing standards, protocols, work
flows perhaps, and spreading the task around. Can't the library
associations work together to help DOAJ? This sounds like such an
obvious and elementary question. To start with, ARL, CARL, LIBER, etc.
could quickly confer to get the ball rolling. DOAJ needs and deserves
your support.
As for Jeffrey Beall, his position would be so much more appreciated if
he approached this issue positively. He too could help if he wanted to.
And his reputation would be much better if he did.
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
Le vendredi 14 août 2015 à 20:44 +0000, Couture Marc a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> The problem is that the two following peer-reviewed papers (both
> published in 2012, by the way, so I had thought it was one of them)
> conclude that the majority of OA journals don’t charge APC’s.
>
>
>
> David J Solomon, D. J. & Björk, B.-C. (2012). A Study of Open Access
> Journals Using Article Processing Charges. JASIST, 63(8), 1485-1495.
> Manuscript (accepted version) retrieved from
> http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/preprint.pdf
>
>
>
> Laakso, M. & Björk, B.-C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing: A
> study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC
> Medicine, 10, 124. Retrieved from
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/124
>
>
>
> I had previously read them in depth, and hadn’t found any flaw in
> their methodology. Neither did the reviewers, obviously.
>
>
>
> However, to get a more complete picture, one must also consider the
> proportion of articles published each year. According to Laakso and
> Björk (2012), a slight majority of OA articles published in 2011
> required APCs (the exact figure is hard to tell, for reasons I
> understood fully after a private discussion with one of the authors).
>
>
>
> So, to minimize any risk of misleading, one could safely say that:
>
>
>
> - A fair majority of OA journals don’t ask APCs.
>
>
>
> - APCs are paid for a majority of OA papers (assuming waivers are not
> widely granted).
>
>
>
> By the way, it seems that APC figures in DOAJ website are being
> updated (along with all the new metadata), so one can’t get any
> reliable data there for the time being (the figure is 6% with APCs,
> but with very partial coverage as reveals a quick inspection of the
> available spreadsheet).
>
>
>
> Marc Couture
>
>
>
>
>
>
> De : Beall, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Beall at ucdenver.edu]
> Envoyé : 14 août 2015 15:30
> À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Cc : Couture Marc
> Objet : RE: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Couture is correct that the passage I cited does not itself cite
> the 2012 SOAP study, and I apologize for this error.
>
>
>
> Here is what I really should have included:
>
>
>
> "The overwhelming majority (nearly 70%) of OA journals charge no APCs.
> Moreover, when they do charge APCs, the fees are usually paid by
> funders (59%) or by universities (24%). Only 12% of the time are they
> paid by authors out of pocket. See Table 4 of the comprehensive Study
> of Open Access Publishing (SOAP). http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260"
>
>
>
> This passage is from Dr. Peter Suber's blog
> here:https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/K1UE3XDk9E9
>
> I also got the year of the SOAP study wrong; it was 2011, not 2012.
> Dr. Suber's blog post quoted above is from April 5, 2013.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Beall
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of Couture Marc
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 12:56 PM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Well, I don’t know exactly what part of Jeffrey Beall’s post Dana Roth
> agrees with, but I’m wondering about that part of the same post:
>
>
>
> >
>
> "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.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I found no link to or mention of a 2012 study in the cited blog post
> (by Peter Suber). Before we go any further (if need be), perhaps we
> should ask Mr Beall to tell us what study he alludes to, so that we
> can judge by ourselves the validity of conclusions such as the one in
> the excerpt quoted.
>
>
>
> Marc Couture
>
>
>
>
>
>
> De :goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] De la
> part de Dana Roth
> Envoyé : 14 août 2015 13:40
> À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Objet : [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I strongly agree with Jeffrey Beall ... journals, like 'ACS Central
> Science', that provide OA without author charges need to be recognized
> and applauded!
>
>
>
>
>
> Dana L. Roth
> Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
> dzrlib at library.caltech.edu
> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> From:goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org] on behalf of
> Stevan Harnad [amsciforum at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:16 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d030c007/attachment-0001.html
More information about the GOAL
mailing list