<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.2.2">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Gold OA will not get in the way of Green OA if it is explained correctly; and forfeiting gold OA will do more harm to the OA movement than the harm gold OA could ever and putatively make to green OA.<BR>
<BR>
If, among OA advocates, we could get this behind us, we could achieve four important results:<BR>
<BR>
1. We would be far more united, and, therefore, more powerful;<BR>
<BR>
2. We could present a better, clearer, definition of acceptable OA that would clearly spell out what green and gold OA mean, and thus could fight back more effectively against obfuscating strategies that are thrown in the path of OA by all kinds of opponents;<BR>
<BR>
3. We could begin to imagine how green and gold OA can support and reinforce each other.<BR>
<BR>
4. Finally, we would find it easier to dispel the false notion that OA is only gold OA, an error made even worse when gold OA is equated with author-pay schemes as if science publishing, while requiring financial support, could not imagine it outside a commercial scheme of some sort.<BR>
<BR>
This said, and very loudly this time:<BR>
<BR>
<OL TYPE=1>
<LI TYPE=1 VALUE=1>Let me reiterate that <B>I am not happy with author-pay schemes</B> even though I believe PLoS is doing a great job on a number of fronts crucial for OA.
<LI TYPE=1 VALUE=2>Let me say that hybrid journals are commercial tricks imagined to increase revenue streams from all possible sources, including, this time, funders. They should be rejected outright.
<LI TYPE=1 VALUE=3>Mandating green OA is fundamental and all funders should move to do so, including with research results that appear in book form, as is often the case in SHS.
</OL>
<BR>
Jean-Claude Guédon<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Le mercredi 11 juillet 2012 à 16:25 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
GOLD FEVER AND FINCH FOLLIES
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
The biggest risk from Gold OA (and it's already a reality) is that it will get in
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
the way of the growth of Green OA, and hence the growth of OA itself.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
That's Gold Fever: Most people assume that OA means Gold OA, and don't
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
realize that the fastest, surest and (extra-)cost-free way to 100% OA is to
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
provide (and mandate) Green OA.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
The second biggest risk (likewise already a reality, if the Finch Follies
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
are Followed) is that Gold Fever makes sluggish, gullible researchers,
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
their funders, their governments and even their poor impecunious universities
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
get lured into paying for pre-emptive Gold OA (while still paying for subscriptions)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
instead of providing and mandating Green OA at no extra cost.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
The risk of creating a market for junk Gold OA journals is only the
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
third of the Gold OA risk factors (but it's already a reality too).
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Gold OA's time will come. But it is not now. A proof of principle was
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
fine, to refute the canard that peer review is only possible on the
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
subscription model.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
But paying for pre-emptive Gold OA now, instead of mandating and
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
providing Green OA globally first will turn out to be one of the more
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
foolish things our sapient species has done to date (though by far
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
not the worst).
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Stevan Harnad
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On 2012-07-11, at 3:48 PM, Richard Poynder wrote:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Jeffrey Beall, a metadata librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, maintains a list of what he calls “predatory publishers”. That is, publishers who, as Beall puts it, “unprofessionally exploit the gold open-access model for their own profit.” Amongst other things, this can mean that papers are subjected to little or no peer review before they are published.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Currently, Beall’s blog list of predatory publishers lists over 100 separate companies, and 38 independent journals. And the list is growing by 3 to 4 new publishers each week.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Beall’s opening salvo against predatory publishers came in 2009, when he published a review of the OA publisher Bentham Open for <I>The Charleston Advisor</I>. Since then, he has written further articles on the topic, and has been featured twice in <I>The Chronicle of Higher Education</I>.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
His work on predatory publishers has caused Beall to become seriously concerned about the risks attached to gold OA. And he is surprised at how little attention these risks get from the research community. As he puts it, “I am dismayed that most discussions of gold open-access fail to include the quality problems I have documented. Too many OA commenters look only at the theory and ignore the practice. We must ‘maintain the integrity of the academic record’, and I am doubtful that gold open-access is the best long-term way to accomplish that.”
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
An interview with Jeffrey Beall is available here:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<FONT COLOR="#0000ff"><A HREF="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-interviews-jeffrey-beall-university.html">http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-interviews-jeffrey-beall-university.html</A></FONT>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>