[GOAL] Re: OA Provision vs. OA Semiolog

Wed Aug 19 16:56:35 BST 2015

Dear Stevan and all,

Thanks for the links. I had read some of them.

Nevertheless, http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html is what Peter Suber says, http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html is what you say, and http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html is yours as well. I of course recognize your expertise in this field, but these statements are not "official" to me. Others, as Jeffrey Bell, wrote "Gold = free to reader, author pays article processing charge; Platinum = free to reader, free to author" (http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?A2=ind1304&L=LIBLICENSE-L&F=&S=&P=77120, linked by yourself in one of your articles mentioned).

Some LAC authors use "Platinum OA" and "Commercial OA" (author pays) as sub-types of OA, and I don't see why they should be wrong. It's just a way to call it.  What would you call it? Subsidized OA? OA without APCs? (just asking)

You wrote "There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms". Ok, but, as I wrote before, I think OA was not meant to be only "gratis". Officialy (BBB) it was meant to be free of access + free to use. It's not open if it's not "libre". The types "gratis" and "libre" came after, introduced by some authors (Suber, at least). So Platinum has been used by others. Scientists make the names. All scientists by all over the world.

I don't think it is a banal discussion only on names. It's about points of view. With all due respect, I think that you and others are using a Western point of view, when OA should be treated through a universal point of view. "Platinum OA" is very important in LAC, not that important in Western countries, and that's why it is refused by Western authors.

That's what I think.

Thanks for your time.

With kind regards,

Miguel Navas-Fernández
PhD Researcher at Universitat de Barcelona
Member of Acceso Abierto research group
Associate Editor of DOAJ
ORCID Linkedin Twitter

________________________________________

Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:42:44 -0400
From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
Subject: [GOAL]  OA Provision vs. OA Semiology
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
Message-ID:
        <CAE7iXOiAjEWG2wi9nZjZU9Akc+=b2jXX5NK80H4HGhguj7-W-A at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The purpose of terminology and definitions is to clarify and simplify their
referents.

The BBB description of OA, based on the first B in 2002
<http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read>, was updated in 2008
<http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html>
to
distinguish Green from Gold OA and Gratis from Libre OA, exactly along the
lines described:

See also:

On "Diamond OA," "Platinum OA," "Titanium OA," and "Overlay-Journal OA,"
Again <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html>

and

Paid Gold OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color Cacophony
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html> (2013)

And, to repeat:

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

Aquest correu electrònic i els annexos poden contenir informació confidencial o protegida legalment i està adreçat exclusivament a la persona o entitat destinatària. Si no sou el destinatari final o la persona encarregada de rebre’l, no esteu autoritzat a llegir-lo, retenir-lo, modificar-lo, distribuir-lo, copiar-lo ni a revelar-ne el contingut. Si heu rebut aquest correu electrònic per error, us preguem que n’informeu al remitent i que elimineu del sistema el missatge i el material annex que pugui contenir. Gràcies per la vostra col·laboració.

Este correo electrónico y sus anexos pueden contener información confidencial o legalmente protegida y está exclusivamente dirigido a la persona o entidad destinataria. Si usted no es el destinatario final o la persona encargada de recibirlo, no está autorizado a leerlo, retenerlo, modificarlo, distribuirlo, copiarlo ni a revelar su contenido. Si ha recibido este mensaje electrónico por error, le rogamos que informe al remitente y elimine del sistema el mensaje y el material anexo que pueda contener. Gracias por su colaboración.

This email message and any documents attached to it may contain confidential or legally protected material and are intended solely for the use of the individual or organization to whom they are addressed. We remind you that if you are not the intended recipient of this email message or the person responsible for processing it, then you are not authorized to read, save, modify, send, copy or disclose any of its contents. If you have received this email message by mistake, we kindly ask you to inform the sender of this and to eliminate both the message and any attachments it carries from your account. Thank you for your collaboration.