<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=us-ascii"><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";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Consolas;
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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'>Earlier when I highlighted the distinction between gold and platinum open-access, you indicated (and your followers confirmed) that we already had enough colors of open access and that adding new ones would only serve to confuse the matter. Now I see you are using the term "black open access," a term that is new to me. <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'>Thus, I think your usage gives license to everyone using the term "platinum open-access," which is published research that is free to the reader and free to the author. <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'>Thank you and kind regards,<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=325 height=48 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CEA243.9A9DBB60" 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><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><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><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> Monday, August 26, 2013 5:45 AM<br><b>To:</b> ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics<br><b>Cc:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Re: OA Growth Monitoring Needs a Google Data-Mining Exemption<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>On 2013-08-26, at 6:12 AM, "Bosman, J.M." (Utrech University Library) wrote (in SIGMETRICS):</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Do you know..</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>1) How many of the freely available full text versions are “<span style='background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow'>black OA</span>”, i.e. shared against copyright? I know many examples of that in for instance ResearchGate, that is indexed by Google Scholar….</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>There are technically two kinds of "<span style='background:yellow;mso-highlight:yellow'>Black OA</span>": </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(B1) Third-party piracy -- X posting the articles of Y. This is very unlikely to be in Institutional Repositories.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(B2) Authors self-archiving their own articles (Green OA), ignoring any publisher embargo (most of Arxiv would have been B2 for years, until the publishers altered their policy and endorsed immediate, unembargoed Green OA self-archiving).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>We will soon have separate data for Green OA growth in UK institutional repositories (mandated and unmandated).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(Let others count the proportion of that Green OA that is B2: I'm more interested in burying publishers' damaging and unjustified access embargoes than in praising, enforcing or reinforcing them!))</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>But let it be noted that access provided after an embargo is Delayed Access (DA), not OA, which is immediate (and permanent). </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>In many if not most fields of research the critical growth period for new research uptake is within the first year of publication (if not earlier, for preprints), although this may only be expressed and measurable as citations somewhat later. This is the research progress that (some) publishers are trying to suppress in order to sustain their subscription revenues at all costs (to research) by trying to embargo Green OA self-archiving. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(It is ironic also, and instructive, that in fields where the critical growth period for new research uptake is longer than a year, publishers are trying to impose even longer embargoes on Green OA self-archiving.)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The publishing tail, still trying to keep wagging the research dog, come what may...</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br><br></span><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>2) To what extent [can] the growth of available OA versions be explained by increasing numbers of green OA versions of which the embargo period has ended and to what extent to more general acceptance of OA by scholars? It seems likely that the first effect will be more pronounced 6-24 months after a period of exceptional growth of self-archiving in repositories etc.</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The empirical part of question 2 would be answered by the data that answer question 1. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>The rest seems circular: </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Yes, by definition, OA growth during embargoes will take place during embargoes, not after, whereas OA growth after embargoes have elapsed will take place after embargoes have elapsed, not before. </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>And yes, whatever is actually being done is a sign of "acceptance" of doing it (by authors, I should think, since users looking for articles are ready to accept whatever they can find, at least for Gratis OA (read-only), if not Libre OA! (read-write).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Stevan Harnad</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Sean Burns wrote:</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;z-index:auto'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Although a harvester would be very nice, sampling theory and some manual work does the trick too... [in my dissertation] I took the sample in May 2010 and collected bibliometric and other relevant data from Google Scholar in July 2010, July 2011, and July 2012.</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 6:58 AM<b> </b>Stevan Harnad wrote:</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=NL><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Yes, hand-sampling can and does provide valuable information. </span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>But, as I said, for systematic ongoing monitoring of the global time-course of OA growth across institutions, disciplines and nations, hand-sampling is excruciatingly difficult and time-consuming, holding research that could greatly benefit the worldwide research community (as well as Google and Google Scholar) to a scale and pace that is more suitable for a doctoral dissertation.</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Historically speaking, if a few projects designed to monitor the ongoing global growth and distribution of OA were allowed to do machine data-mining in Google space, the growth rate of OA would be dramatically accelerated (and thereby also the size and functionality of Google Scholar space).</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Otherwise, efforts to enrich Google Scholar space are relegated to the same fate as attempts to enrich vendors, spammers, napsters or phishermen.</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Stevan Harnad</span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;z-index:auto'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br>> This is a response to a query regarding Eric Archambault's report on<br>> OA Growth by Adam G Dunn in Science Insider: "I find it difficult to<br>> believe that the authors of the study managed to create a harvester<br>> that could identify and verify the pdfs linked to by Google Scholar<br>> when Google Scholar actively blocks IP addresses when they identify<br>> crawling."<br>><br>> Our own "harvester" attempts to gather the all-important data on OA<br>> growth were blocked by Google.<br>><br>> It is completely understandable and justifiable that Google shields<br>> its increasingly vital global database and search mechanisms from the<br>> countless and incessant worldwide attempts at exploitation by<br>> commercial interests, spammers, and malware that could bring Google to<br>> its knees if not rigorously and relentlessly blocked.<br>><br>> But in the very special (and tiny) case of scientific research<br>> articles it would not only be a great help to the worldwide research<br>> community but to Google (and Google Scholar) itself if Google granted<br>> special individual exemptions for important international studies like<br>> Eric Archambault's, which was commissioned by the European Union to<br>> monitor the global growth rate of open access to research.<br>><br>> Google and Google Scholar would become all the richer as research<br>> databases if data like Eric's (and our own) were not made so<br>> excruciatingly difficult and time-consuming to gather by Google's<br>> blanket blockage of automated data-mining.<br>><br>><br>> (We do not trawl books, so Google's agreements with publishers are not<br>> violated or at issue in any way. We just want to trawl for articles<br>> whose metadata match the the metadata from Web of Science or SCOPUS<br>> and have been made freely accessible on the web; nor do we want their<br>> full-texts: just to check whether they are there!)<br>><br>> Stevan Harnad<br>><br>></span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=NL style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'> </span><span lang=NL><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>