<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><div>On 2012-08-27, David Wojick wrote on Sigmetrics:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>I quite agree that there are important metric issues</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>with OA, beginning with how many articles are being</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>published, or archieved, and where? Is this simple</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>information available anywhere? I cannot find it.<br><br>My original objection was to Arun's advocacy of OA,</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>which I do not share in the case of mandatory OA.</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>Do we want to debate policy here, as opposed to metrics?<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div>Why do we have to keep hearing David Wojick's opinions </div><div>if he does not believe they should be debated on the </div><div>sigmetrics list? (I am accordingly branching it to GOAL, </div><div>where they certainly can be debated.)<div><br></div><div>Now some clarifications:</div><div><br></div><div><div>Isidro F. Aguillo wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">In my humble opinion this is a true Sigmetrics issue</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">as bibliometrics (publishing in journals with a high</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">impact factor) is one of the main reasons (perhaps</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix"> the only reason) why the authors are signing contracts</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">transferring their rights to the publishers, as usually</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">they perceive that OA alternative journals have not</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">the same value for evaluation purposes (my personal</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">experience with authors from different countries). In</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">my personal view OA status should be considered</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">as an important indicator when building journal rankings. <br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>This is a little scrambled. Isidoro. </div><div><br></div><div>OA means free online access. </div><div><br></div><div>There are two ways to provide OA: Publish in an OA</div><div>journal (Gold OA) or publish in any journal and </div><div>self-archive your final draft (Green OA). </div><div><br></div><div>Green OA obviously has the same value for evaluation </div><div>purposes as non-OA, since it is the same articles.</div><div><br></div><div>Inasmuch as journal rankings are based on quality or </div><div>citation counts: quality is unaffected by Green OA; and </div><div>citation (and download) counts are increased by Green </div><div>OA (just as they are decreased by high journal prices).</div><div><br></div><div>As to Gold OA: Surely, Isidoro, you do not mean (as I'm </div><div>sure you don't) that in ranking journals (or research or </div><div>researchers) for either quality or citation counts, the </div><div>journal's business-model should be given some weight, </div><div>rather than just its quality or citation count? </div><div><br></div><div>Now as to David Wojick, who wrote:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote cite="mid:898C31B9-726F-45D0-AF46-55DB1536C6AE@craigellachie.us" type="cite"><div>Stevan, you seem to have missed the word mandatory</div></blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><blockquote cite="mid:898C31B9-726F-45D0-AF46-55DB1536C6AE@craigellachie.us" type="cite"><div>in my 7 word sentence.</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div></div><div>David's 7 word sentence was: </div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>I regard mandatory green OA as theft.</div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>to which my reply had been: </div><div><br></div><div>"And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal </div><div>subscription prices to be extortion."</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding mandates, I suppose David has in mind </div><div>something along the lines of the following mind-numbing </div><div>distinction from Elsevier's latest policy revision (I paraphrase </div><div>to keep the double-talk to a minimum):</div><div><br></div><div>"Authors retain the right to provide Green OA if they <i>may,</i> </div><div>but they not if they <i>must</i>."</div><div><br></div><div>In other words, it's not theft for authors to exercise their </div><div>right because they feel like it, but it's "theft" if they exercise </div><div>their right if their employers and/or funders require them </div><div>to exercise it.</div><div><br></div><div>It would be an awkward day indeed, for publishers, if, in </div><div>ascertaining that the text that authors submit for publication </div><div>is indeed their own to submit, and not stolen, the publisher's </div><div>policy were:</div><div><br></div><div> "We will publish your work if you submitted it because </div><div>you felt like it, but it's theft if you submit it because your </div><div>employers and/or funders require it."</div><div><br></div><div>In other words, the "publisher or perish" mandate is the </div><div>publisher's best friend. Best not to bite the hand that feeds</div><div> you, when the mandate is extended to "self-archive to flourish."</div><div><br></div><div>As to David's query about how many articles are being </div><div>published, or archived, and where: There has been a good </div><div>deal posted and published about this. Start with this figure </div><div>about the UK data from a recent Nature editorial:</div><div><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/uk-jpg-7.4973?article=1.10846">http://www.nature.com/news/uk-jpg-7.4973?article=1.10846</a></div><div><br></div><div>And then read some of the references cited here:</div><div><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/905-Finch-Fiasco-in-Figures.html">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/905-Finch-Fiasco-in-Figures.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>