<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bo-Christer Björk <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bo-christer.bjork@hanken.fi" target="_blank">bo-christer.bjork@hanken.fi</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div> </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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div> The idea that publishers would tolerate large scale
mandate driven green OA (say 50-60 %) of articles with no
embargoes or counteractions is pretty naive. Elsevier has shown
the way with rules stipulating that Green OA is OK, unless its
mandated, in which case they require special deals with the the
institutions in question. And many publishers who previously had
no embargo periods are starting to define such.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Bo-Christer, unfortunately you have completely missed the point.</div><div><br></div><div><i>Yes, publishers can and will try to impose embargoes on Green OA, especially encouraged by the perverse effete of the UK's Finch/RCUK preference and subsidy for Gold.</i> That was not being denied, it was being affirmed: "<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1077-Critique-of-UK-Governments-Response-to-BIS-Recommendations-on-UK-Open-Access-Policy.html">Joint 'Re-Engineering' Plan of UK Government and UK Publisher Lobby for 'Nudging' UK Researchers Toward Gold Open Access</a>"</div>
<div><br></div><div>But the <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=%22immediate+deposit%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">immediate-deposit</a> (<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=hefce+immediate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">HEFCE</a>/<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=liege+model++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">Liege</a>) mandates are immune to these publisher embargoes. They are the compromise mandate that fits all funders and institutions, regardless of how long a maximal publisher embargo they allow. (Green OA after one a one-year embargo has been pretty much conceded by all publishers, whether or not they admit it, so that's the worst case scenario: that's the target to beat). The HEFCE/Liege mandates get everything deposited in institutional repositories immediately, whether or not it is made OA immediately. And that means that access to everything immediately becomes at most 2 keystrokes away, one from the requestor, one from the author, thanks to the repositories' automated "Almost-OA" <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=button+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">Button</a>: see below.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>As to Elsevier's "special deals" for mandating institutions: sensible institutions will politely inform Elsevier that they are prepared to negotiate with publishers about subscription pricing "Big Deals" -- but not about university policy. </div>
<div><br></div><div>As to Elsevier authors (who -- not their universities! -- are the ones negotiating rights agreements with their publishers): They can rest assured that Elsevier is still completely on the <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=angels++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">Side of the Angels</a> on immediate, unembargoed Green OA, as it has been <a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg3771">ever since 2004</a>: All Elsevier authors today retain the right to make their papers OA immediately upon publication -- no embargo -- by depositing their final refereed draft in their institutional repository and setting access to it as OA immediately. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The recently added Elsevier <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-talk++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">double-talk</a> about "<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=voluntary+or+voluntariness+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">voluntariness</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=systematic+OR+systematicity+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">systematicity</a>" has absolutely no legal force or meaning. As it stands, it is just vacuous, pseudo-legal <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=fud++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">FUD</a> and can and should be safely ignored by authors.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And if and when Elsevier (with its rather unhappy public image) ever decides to bite the bullet and change its rights agreements to state clearly that, as of today, Elsevier authors no longer retain the right to make their papers OA unembargoed, then the institutional repositories' automated <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=button+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">request-a-copy Button</a> will tide over researcher needs during the embargo with one click from the user to request a copy and one click by the author to provide one. This is not OA, but it's "Almost-OA."</div>
<div><br></div><div>Once the immediate-deposit mandate, the Button, and X% Immediate-OA + 100-X% Almost-OA prevail worldwide, it won't be much longer till embargoes die their inevitable and well-deserved deaths under the overwhelming worldwide pressure for OA, which by then will already all be only one keystroke away.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Meanwhile, X% Immediate-OA + 100-X% Almost-OA will already be incomparably more access than we have (or have ever had) till now.</div><div><br></div><div>If you don't mind my adding it: I do sometimes wonder whose side you are on, Bo-Christer! It's one thing to objectively measure the level and growth rate of Green and Gold OA, Immediate and Delayed, across disciplines and time, as you do, valuably. It's a rather different thing to advocate for Gold OA. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Now, I am myself unambiguously and unambivalently an advocate for Green OA, whether when I am objectively measuring its growth rates or designing tools and policies to facilitate and accelerate mandating it. And my reasons (likewise no secrets) are the many reasons that Green OA can be facilitated and accelerated by mandating it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Gold OA, in contrast, costs extra money (over and above uncancellable subscriptions) and can only grow on publishers' terms and timetable.</div><div><br></div><div>Do you really have any reason to believe that OA can and will grow faster via the paid Gold route than the mandated Green route?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Because the reason you give above (publisher embargoes) certainly does not entail that conclusion at all.</div><div><br></div><div>And here's a new parameter whose growth rate you might now find it interesting to measure: The growth rates of various kinds of mandates, keeping a special eye on the most powerful and effective one: The HEFCE/Liege model. Because that's where most of the action in the next few years will be taking place...</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><br></div></div>