Dear Professor Beall,<div><br></div><div>You are perfectly right that I both (1) strongly advocate Green OA self-archiving mandates by funders and institutions and (2) strongly oppose constraining author choice of journal by any other criterion than journal quality standards.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It is for this reason that I strongly advocate the <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/344687/">strongest and most effective Green OA mandate</a>, the ID/OA (Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access) mandate model (as I described in <b>a-j</b>, in my posting):</div>
<div><br></div><div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><strong><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)">a.</span></strong><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,51)"> funders and institutions mandate immediate-deposit </span></div>
<div><font color="#333333" face="Verdana, sans-serif">...</font></div><div><strong style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">d.</strong><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> immediately upon acceptance for publication</span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">...</span></div><div><strong style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">f.</strong><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> whether access to the deposit is immedate-OA or embargoed</span></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>What is <i>required</i> is immediate-deposit, not immediate-OA. </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php">Over 60% of journals</a> endorse immediate-OA. For the remaining 40%, the Button (h) can tide over user needs until, as I went on to say at the end, universal ID/OA mandates induce the inevitable and well-deserved death of all remaining OA embargoes, under the growing pressure of global OA:</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><br></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><strong style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">h.</strong><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> institutions implement repository's facilitated </span><a href="https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy" target="_blank" style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span style="color:rgb(0,51,102)">email eprint request Button</span></a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">;</span></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>until, as I went on to say at the end, universal ID/OA mandates induce the inevitable and well-deserved death of all remaining OA embargoes, under the growing pressure of global OA.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>The other crucial component of the optimal Green OA mandate is the link to research assessment:</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><strong style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">i.</strong><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> institutions designate immediate-deposit the mechanism for submitting publictions for research performance assessment;</span></div>
<div><strong style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">j.</strong><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> institutions monitor and ensure immediate-deposit mandate compliance</span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></div></blockquote></div><div>So you see there is no constraint whatsoever on journal choice with the ID/OA mandate (although I don't think any harm is done by imposing a 6-12-month limit on embargo length; authors can ignore it, but it helps stress that embargoes are not welcome -- and will not be tolerated by authors for long, once ID/OA prevails).</div>
<div><br></div><div><div>At the end of my posting I also described, step by step, how mandating Green OA will lead to a transition from today's subscriptions and double-paid "Fool's Gold" to Fair Gold at an affordable, sustainable price.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>I am criticized for posting variants of the same message so many times. Yet as you see, although the message is simple, and short, it keeps being missed on 1st reading, just as you missed it. </div>
<div><br></div><div>But I hope it is clearer now.</div><div><br></div><div>(<a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ceterum_censeo">Ceterum censeo</a>: There is no such thing as "<a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/05/08/defining-platinum-open-access/">platinum OA</a>"! There's just author-provided OA, which is Green. And publisher provided OA, which is Gold. The publication charges for Green OA continue to be covered via institutional subscriptions. The publication charges for Gold OA can be covered in three different ways: (1) <i>subscriptions</i>, as in Green OA; the publisher simply makes the online version free for all; (2) <i>subsidies and/or pro bono;</i> (3) <i>author-fees</i>.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div>PS It's not the Gold OA <i>model</i> that abrogates author freedom, it's a Gold OA <i>mandate</i>, requiring the author to publish in a Gold OA journal. Fortunately, there is no such mandate anywhere today, among the 288 OA mandates registered in <a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org">ROARMAP</a>. The <a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september12/harnad/09harnad.html">Finch/RCUK mandate</a> set out to be a Gold OA mandate, but has since subsequently detoxified, under pressure from authors, institutions and OA advocates. It's still a flawed mandate though, but if the <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html">HEFCE/REF mandate proposal</a> is adopted, the remaining flaws will be remedied. The HEFCE/REF proposed mandate is ID/OA, linked to research assessment... </div>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Beall, Jeffrey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu" target="_blank">Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d">Dear Prof. Harnad:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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]<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"><u></u> <u></u></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." <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#262626">Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor<u></u><u></u></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="http://jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu" target="_blank">jeffrey.beall@ucdenver.edu</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:blue"><u></u> <u></u></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" 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"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></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""> <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] <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<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></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" target="_blank"><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><u></u><u></u></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<u></u><u></u></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/" target="_blank"><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><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#003366;background:white"><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html">HEFCE for REF</a></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;background:white">):</span><u></u><u></u></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" target="_blank"><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<u></u><u></u></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><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></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:<u></u><u></u></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" target="_blank">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<u></u><u></u></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>