<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Consolas;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>Dear Prof. Harnad:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>I am delighted that gave a positive mention to authors' choice, as indicated by your referring to number six below as a "predictable perverse effect" of the RCUK policy. I agree -- No one should take away an author's freedom of journal choice. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><strong><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'>6.</span></strong><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'> abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [economic model/CC-BY instead of quality]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>However, you've been a big advocate of mandates, and these mandates effectively remove freedom of journal-choice in many instances. I read your recent article, "Worldwide open access: UK leadership?" and saw that you advocate various mandates, some of which effectively abrogate the authors' freedom of journal-choice. For example, if a journal does not allow green OA archiving, then the author would be mandated not to publish in it, effectively removing his "freedom of journal-choice." <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>I'd be interested to hear how you reconcile these contradictory views. Why is it a flaw for the gold OA model to abrogate authors' freedom of journal-choice but not a flaw when the green OA model does the same thing?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#262626'>Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#262626'>Scholarly Initiatives Librarian<br>Auraria Library<br>University of Colorado Denver<br>1100 Lawrence St.<br>Denver, Colo. 80204 USA<br>(303) 556-5936</span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:gray'><br></span><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:blue'><a href="jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu">jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><img border=0 width=324 height=48 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CE5ACA.49BC64A0" alt="Description: http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/departments/oiuc/brand/downloads/branddownloads/branddocuments/Logos-E-mail%20Signatures/emailSig_2campus.png"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Stevan Harnad<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:51 PM<br><b>To:</b> LibLicense-L Discussion Forum<br><b>Cc:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Re: The UK's Open Access Policy: Controversy Continues<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;background:white'>Yes, the </span><a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#003366;background:white'>Finch/RCUK policy</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;background:white'> has had its predictable perverse effects:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><strong><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'>1.</span></strong><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'> sustaining arbitrary, bloated Gold OA fees<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>2.</span></strong> wasting scarce research funds<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>3.</span></strong> double-paying publishers [subscriptions plus Gold]<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>4.</span></strong> handing subscription publishers a hybrid-gold-mine<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>5.</span></strong> enabling hybrid publishers to double-dip<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>6.</span></strong> abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [economic model/CC-BY instead of quality]<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>7.</span></strong> imposing re-mix licenses that many authors don't want and most users and fields don't need<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>8.</span></strong> inspiring subscription publishers to adopt and lengthen Green OA embargoes [to maxmize hybrid-gold revenues]<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>9.</span></strong> handicapping Green OA mandates worldwide (by incentivizing embargoes)<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>10.</span></strong> allowing journal-fleet publishers to confuse and exploit institutions and authors even more<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;background:white'>But the solution is also there (as already adopted in </span><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#003366;background:white'>Francophone Belgium</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;background:white'> and proposed by </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#003366;background:white'>HEFCE for REF</span></a><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;background:white'>):</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><strong><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'>a.</span></strong><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333'> funders and institutions mandate immediate-deposit <br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>b.</span></strong> of the peer-reviewed final draft <br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>c.</span></strong> in the author's institutional repository <br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>d.</span></strong> immediately upon acceptance for publication<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>e.</span></strong> whether journal is subscription orGold<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>f.</span></strong> whether access to the deposit is immedate-OA or embargoed<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>g.</span></strong> whether license is transfered, retained or CC-BY;<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>h.</span></strong> institutions implement repository's facilitated <a href="https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy"><span style='color:#003366'>email eprint request Button</span></a>;<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>i.</span></strong> institutions designate immediate-deposit the mechanism for submitting publictions for research performance assessment;<br><strong><span style='font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"'>j.</span></strong> institutions monitor and ensure immediate-deposit mandate compliance<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;background:white'>This policy restores author choice, moots publisher embargoes, makes Gold and CC-BY completely optional, provides the incentive for author compliance and the natural institutional mechanism for verifying it, consolidates funder and institutional mandates, hsstens the natural death of OA embargoes, the onset of universal Green OA, and the resultant institutional subscription cancellations, journal downsizing and transition to Fair-Gold OA at an affordable, sustainable price, paid out of institutional subscription cancellation savings instead of over-priced, double-paid, double-dipped Fool's-Gold. And of course Fair-Gold OA will license all the re-use rights users need and authors want to allow.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:59 PM, LIBLICENSE <<a href="mailto:liblicense@gmail.com" target="_blank">liblicense@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>From: Richard Poynder <<a href="mailto:richard.poynder@gmail.com">richard.poynder@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 16:11:17 +0100<br><br>The new Open Access policy introduced this year by Research Councils<br>UK — in response to last year’s Finch Report — has been very<br>controversial, particularly its exhortation to researchers to “prefer”<br>Gold over Green Open Access<br><br>When it was first announced there was an outcry from UK universities<br>over the cost implications of the new policy. In response, on 7th<br>September last year the UK Minister for Universities and Science David<br>Willetts made an additional £10 million available to 30 research<br>intensive universities to help pay OA transition costs.<br><br>But the controversy has continued regardless, and in January this year<br>the House of Lords Science & Technology Committee launched an inquiry<br>into the policy. The subsequent report roundly criticised RCUK for the<br>way it had been implemented, and concluded that lack of clarity about<br>the policy and the guidance offered was ‘unacceptable’. RCUK responded<br>by making a number of “clarifications”, and extended the permissible<br>embargo period before research papers could be made available under<br>Green OA from 6 and 12 months, to 24 months — an extension that led<br>many OA advocates to complain that a bad policy had been made worse.<br><br>In the meantime, the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills<br>Select Committee had announced its own inquiry, which at the time of<br>writing remains ongoing. During this inquiry a number of new issues<br>have emerged, including complaints that some publishers are exploiting<br>RCUK’s new policy to pump up their profits (profits that many believe<br>are already unacceptably high). There are concerns, for instance, that<br>the £10m in additional funding that Willetts provided is being used<br>inappropriately. At the centre of these new concerns is Elsevier, the<br>world’s largest scholarly publisher.<br><br>More here: <a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-uks-open-access-policy-controversy.html" target="_blank">http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-uks-open-access-policy-controversy.html</a><br><br>Richard Poynder<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>