<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jan Velterop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com" target="_blank">velterop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">What I don't understand, Steve, is your apparent hostility to OA articles in hybrid journals. Whence this hostility? Why 'gold-only' journals? Why not 'gold-only' publishers? As long as the OA articles in question are CC-BY, then what's the problem?<div>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div>There are several practical problems with hybrid OA. These are all down to the publisher and could be rectified if they wished.<br><br><ul><li>labelling. It is extremely difficult to determine whether something is hybrid OA. Many publishers don't label the OA articles differently from the toll-access. Those that do call them tings like "Free Access", "Author Choice", which are operationally useless. Sometimes it's stamped on the table of contents and not the paper, sometimes the otehr way round, etc.<br>
</li><li>licences. Many hybrid articles have no licences. Almost all that do have specifically added CC-NC. This is not BOAI-compliant</li><li>The readers' rights are often impossible to determine, even by very intelligent and perceptive humans. <br>
</li></ul> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div><div>Discoverability? Well, CC-BY articles, including those published in hybrid journals, can be deposited in institutional archives without the slightest hesitation (remember, gold *includes* green), if that helps. In fact, if the reasoning is that all of an institute's output should be in that institute's repository, all gold articles should be deposited in any event (and the advantage is even that any FUD has no bearing on gold CC-BY articles).</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br><ul><li>Firstly, not all authors HAVE institutions. Pharma companies? Charities? etc. <br></li><li>Even if it's in an IR it's almost undiscoverable unless you are looking for a specific article by someone-you-know-worked/works there.<br>
</li></ul></div><div>So if I have an article by Foo (@bar) and Plugh (@XYYZY) how do I know where to look (@foo) or @XYZZY and what are my chances of success? <br><br>Can anyone answer questions like:<br>* find me all hybrid deposited articles in Repo XYZZY - not a chance<br>
* find me all hybrid articles in UK/PMC - not a chance<br>* find me all chemistry hybrid articles<br><br>Until we build 21st C search and index engines then all repository-based OA is rooted in the 20th Century<br><br> <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div></div>In the Bethesda Statement on Open Access (<a href="http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition" target="_blank">http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition</a>) a note was included saying that "Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals
or publishers." That seems to me an entirely logical and reasonable stipulation.<div><br></div></div></blockquote><div>I agree completely. And it is appallingly supported by both publishers and Institutional Repositories (many of which do not label anything or blanket-stamp everything as non-resuable (like Cambridge).<br>
<br></div><div>P. <br></div></div><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>