<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Jan Velterop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com" target="_blank">velterop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<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">Peter,<div><br></div><div>There is no contractual 'green' as far as I am aware. It is just a -- reluctant -- permission (or less, a lack of explicit prohibition). From a publisher's point of view it was for a long time OK to allow 'green' as the calculation was that it would be chaotic, and no real threat to subscriptions (although some were nervous about that from the start). I still don't think 'green' is having a serious impact on their revenues (and even if so, they make up a lot from sales to China), but the level of chaos is reduced somewhat on account of an increasing number of mandates, especially big ones, such as the NIH and other governmental mandates, and that is scary for publishers. They can, of course, at any point withdraw from 'green', or rather, reformulate their conditions of publication, and insist on an 'agreement' between author and the publisher that prohibits 'green'.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>Thanks,that's what I thought.<br><br>Here's Stevan from today - with the standard green model:<br><div style="margin-left:40px"><i>And once Green OA prevails globally, and institutional cancelations make
subscriptions unsustainable, Green OA pressure will induce publishers
to downsize -- no more "proof readers or typesetters", no more print or
online edition, all access provision and archiving offloaded onto the
global network of institutional Green OA repositories -- leaving just
the service of managing the peer review to pay for (the peers
themselves have always reviewed for free). The far lower cost of the
peer review management will be paid for out of a fraction of the
institutional annual windfall savings released by having canceled
subscriptions.<br></i></div></div><div><br>I cannot see any sane publisher voluntarily allowing a practice which destroyed their business. They'll just forbid Green. This has always seemed to me an insuperable flaw in Green - it can never get beyond 30-40% or it will be forbidden.<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><div>As far as I am aware there is no compensation for allowing 'green' and publishers do it in an effort not to alienate their authorship, counting on the fact that only a small number would self-archive anyway. That may change, of course, if mandates take hold.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What would the 'body' be to negotiate with publishers about 'green'? </div></div></blockquote><div><br>No idea - I thought it might be SPARC. The OA movement really suffers because it has no coherent front.<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><br></div><div>Given these difficulties and imponderables associated with 'green', I believe that 'gold' has a much better chance to lead to a stable open access. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>It seems Green has zero chance of prevailing overall. <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>And the argument that 'green' would be cheaper is not substantiated. In fact, 'gold' is inevitably leading to real competition on price, as authors have a choice, and readers haven't. They need everything that's relevant for them, regardless of price. They can't read one journal out of two in the same field on the ground that it's the cheaper one, even if they are equivalent in terms of perceived quality. Authors can submit to the cheaper one. And where there is real competition, prices have a strong tendency to approach real 'production' costs, of course.<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>I don't think there is real competition yet especially in hybrids. But I think there will be. The market must be one of the most inefficient of any.<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><br></div><br clear="all"></div></blockquote></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>