<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Kiley, Robert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:r.kiley@wellcome.ac.uk" target="_blank">r.kiley@wellcome.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><p class=""><span style="color:rgb(51,51,255);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I keep hearing this claim that “60% of journals allow immediate, unembargoed, self-archiving” and wonder how accurate this. </span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,255)">Although I’m aware of the <a href="http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2011/11/24/60-of-journals-allow-immediate-archiving-of-peer-reviewed-articles-but-it-gets-much-much-better/)">original source of this dat</a>a, this blog post is almost 2 years old and I suspect things may have changed.</span></p>
</div></blockquote><div style>The <a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php">SHERPA-Romeo statistics</a> are (as far as I know) current. </div><div style><br></div><div style>And (if you can decipher <a href="https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=romeo+(colour+OR+color)++blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">SHERPA's absurd colour-code</a>, in which both green and blue mean green!) they indicate that the percentage of green publishers is 62%. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>The percentage of green journals is likely to be higher as most of the fleet journal publishers are green...</div><div style><br></div><div style>-- or<i> were</i> green until the disastrous Finch/RCUK policy (which <a href="http://penaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/916-On-Robert-Kiley-Wellcome-Trust-on-Finch-Report-and-RCUK-Mandate.html">Robert Kiley</a> and the <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/945-RCUK-Dont-Follow-the-Wellcome-Trust-OA-Policy-Model!.html">Wellcome Trust</a> helped engineer).</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>That policy gave green publishers the irresistible incentive to adopt a green OA embargo (under the pretext of "complying" with Finch/RCUK's policy) and to offer hybrid gold OA in order to cash in on the taxpayer money that Finch/RCUK "preferred" to squander on paying publishers even more, over and above what they were paying them already for subscriptions, under the simplistic <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1042-Some-Reflection-from-Wellcome-Would-be-Welcome.html">Wellcome slogan</a> that "<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/uk-open-access-route-too-costly-report-says-1.13705">publication costs are part of research costs</a>."</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>(Some publishers may perhaps even be making their embargoes <i>exceed</i> the RCUK limit in order to force their authors to pick and pay for Fool's Gold according to the Finch/RCUK "preference" that Robert Kiley and the Wellcome Trust have championed.)</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(51,51,255)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="color:rgb(51,51,255);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I accept that my cohort is small – but it does include all the major publishers (e.g. Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, OUP, NPG, AAS etc).</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div style><a href="https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=elsevier+double++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">Elsevier</a> and <a href="https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=springer+double++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">Springer</a> have so far only back-tracked via self-contradictorydouble-talk. To anyone with the sense to see through the pseudo-legal gibberish, both are still green.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>But if not, chalk that up as another triumph for the Welcome Trust and the Finch Committee...</div><div style><br></div><div style><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div></div></div></div>