<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Joseph Esposito <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:espositoj@gmail.com" target="_blank">espositoj@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><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 dir="ltr">Delighted to see how Professor Harnad's actions move in one way while his argument goes in another. Why the cross-posting? Well, this is despite the fact that the post and comments he cites are openly available on the Scholarly Kitchen. If Green OA were inefficient, there would be no need to cross-post: things would be easily found from a single source. Green OA is a mess, and that is its virtue: it could not exist if it were otherwise.<div>
<br></div><div>I think it is also incorrect, or at least misleading, to say that 60% of articles are OA now. The figure is closer to 100%. Articles appear everywhere: on author's blogs, in institutional repositories, on sites dedicated to particular topics--not to mention the availability as email attachments. What's missing is an easy way to find things and to know that what you find is the version you are looking for. If that happens, there would be no Green OA at all.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Praise be to chaos and confusion. Green OA depends on it.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>It's certainly not the case that 60% of articles are OA now! </div><div style><br></div>
<div style>It's closer to 20-30% (for articles in the last half decade -- <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1037-Delayed-Access-DA-Is-Not-Open-Access-OA-Any-More-Than-Subscription-Access-SA-is-OA.html">50%</a> if, with Science-Metrix, you credit an article with being OA regardless of how long after publication it becomes freely accessible online: immediately, or a year or more after publication; I don't; I call most of that delayed or embargoed access: DA).</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>The <a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple">60% figure</a> I cited (follow the link) did not refer to the percentage of articles that are OA, but to the percentage of journals that do not embargo author self-archiving. A big difference. If that percentage really were OA we'd soon be at our goal. But in fact the reason mandates are needed is to get authors to deposit them all -- the 60% that they can make immediately OA, and also the 40% that is embargoed (to enable authors to provide Button-mediated Almost-OA during the embargo). <br>
</div><div style><br></div><div style>Conflating the percentage of article that are Green OA with the percentage of journals (or publishers) that do not embargo Green OA is the same conflation <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1051-Is-the-Library-Community-Friend-or-Foe-of-OA.html">Rick Anderson</a> made in his posting about cancelling "Green Journals."</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Where Joe gets his figure of 100% OA I can't remotely fathom (unless he is counting the possibility of going to a subscribing library or writing to the author for a reprint as OA -- in which case we've had OA for well over a half-century already).</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>In reality, redundancy is good -- and the capacity of search engines to find everything that is freely accessible online is excellent. </div><div style><br></div><div style>What's missing is the OA content -- 70-80% missing. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>But with the help of the optimal Green OA mandate (<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">the </span><a href="http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/102031" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Liège</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">-</span><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">FNRS</a> <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">model immediate-deposit mandate recommended by </span><a href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">BOAI-10</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">, </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">HEFCE</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">, </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">BIS</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> and </span><a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Implementing_a_policy#Internal_use_of_deposited_versions" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">HOAP</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">, which is immune to publisher embargoes</span>), once adopted by all institutions and funders, Joe's figure of 100% is really just keystrokes away...</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>On versions, see the (12-year-old) <a href="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#23.Version">self-archiving FAQ, #23</a>.</div><div style><br></div><div style>(I poly-post, because my request to redirect this exchange to library lists was not heeded. But I certainly wouldn't want to restrict this exchange to the <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/09/26/when-it-comes-to-green-oa-nice-guys-finish-last/">Scholarly Scullery</a>, which is not a librarian site but a publisher site!)</div>
<div style><br></div><div style><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div><div style><br></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 class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" target="_blank">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<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 dir="ltr"><blockquote style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/09/26/when-it-comes-to-green-oa-nice-guys-finish-last/" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" target="_blank"><strong>Joseph Esposito:</strong></a> <br>
<em>"Stevan Harnad engaged <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1051-Is-the-Library-Community-Friend-or-Foe-of-OA.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" target="_blank">Rick’s comment</a> and asserted that such a [journal cancellation] policy was a very bad thing since it would set back the advance of Green OA. This is an interesting remark, as it reveals Professor Harnad’s conviction that librarians, indeed the whole world, should view the achievement of his idiosyncratic goal as their highest priority. As far as I know, it is not the mission of Rick’s institution or any other to put Green OA at the top of a list of desiderata. Most institutions put service to their own institutions first, as one would expect. Cancelling Green OA journals will indeed set back the advance of Green OA, but that’s beside the point."</em><blockquote>
<a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/09/26/when-it-comes-to-green-oa-nice-guys-finish-last/#comment-112263" style="color:rgb(0,51,102)" target="_blank"><strong>David Crotty</strong></a> (with 11 scholarly thumbs up from his co-cuisiniers): <em><br>
"I find Dr. Harnad’s response here somewhat appalling. Progress in implementing Open Access will come from open discussion, analysis and experimentation, not from censorship, obfuscation and withholding information. When voices as disparate as Kent Anderson and Cameron Neylon are in agreement about OA reaching a new era of practical implementation, it should be a sign that Harnad is out of step here. It’s always valuable to have someone willing to point out the state of the Emperor’s clothing."</em></blockquote>
</blockquote><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Compliments to the chefs. Some suggested recipe upgrades:</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">1. No suggestion made that institutions cannot or should not cancel journals if their articles are all or almost all Green. </span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(No such journal in sight yet, however, since Green OA is still hovering around 20-30%, apart from some parts of Physics -- but there it's already been at or near 100% for over 20 years, and </span><a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261006/" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" target="_blank">no cancellations in sight</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">. For the rest, when Green OA -- which </span><a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265753/" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" target="_blank">grows anarchically, article by article, not systematically, journal by journal</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> -- prevails universally, because Green OA mandates prevail, all or most journal articles will be Green universally, so Green OA will not be a factor in deciding whether to cancel this journal rather than that one.)</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">2. The issue with Rick was not about the notion of canceling journals because their articles are all or almost all Green, but about cancelling journals (60%) because they do <i>not</i> have a policy of embargoing Green OA!</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">3. And such a perverse cancellation policy would not be a setback for Green OA but for OA itself. (But not a </span><em style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">big</em><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> setback, thanks to the <a href="http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/102031" target="_blank">Liège</a>-<a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/" target="_blank">FNRS</a> model immediate-deposit mandate recommended by </span><a href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" target="_blank">BOAI-10</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">, </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" target="_blank">HEFCE</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">, </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" target="_blank">BIS</a> <span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">and </span><a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Implementing_a_policy#Internal_use_of_deposited_versions" style="color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px" target="_blank">HOAP</a><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">, which is immune to publisher embargoes.)</span><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(I notice in the SSP scullery discussion above that my suggestion that Rick should post his OA-unfriendly cancellation strategy to library lists rather than to OA lists amounts to a call for censorship over open discussion. I add only that I am not the moderator of any list, hence have no say over their content. It was an open expression, on an open list, of my opinion (together with the reasons for it) that such discussion belongs on another open list.) </span><span><font color="#888888"><br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><strong style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Stevan Harnad</strong><span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></font></span></div><span class=""><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote></div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Joseph J. Esposito<br>Processed Media<br><a href="mailto:espositoj@gmail.com" target="_blank">espositoj@gmail.com</a><br>
@josephjesposito<br>+Joseph Esposito
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>