<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Stevan,<br>
<br>
Just a couple of points. I'm on the side of OA, period. Gold and
green are just means for achieving it. I also think that even
access with a delay is better than no access, that access to the
version of record is better than access to an author copy, and
that libre access is better than gratis. Anyway the "market" will
decide, but its of course important that stakeholders have good
information about the status quo and developments. That's what my
group has been trying to do recently.<br>
<br>
The big publishers will try to cash in, either via the hybrid
route (there are now already some 8,000 hybrid journals, doubled
in a couple of years), new APC full OA journals emerging weekly,
or if the green route via mandates starts to grow rapidly, by
bundling conditions and compensating income (for foreseeable
reductions in income from lowering numbers of toll gated
articles) with their subscription big deals with the universities
in question. <br>
<br>
Concerning mandates the important metric is the number of articles
that existing mandates cover, and here the gross number of
mandates and its growth is less important. Small Finland, for
instance, is number 5 globally on the Roarmap list with 28
mandates, but 26 of these are from small regional polytechniques
with extremely little output of peer reviewed journal articles.
Also the exact formulation of mandates and the sticks and carrots
in use matters a lot.<br>
<br>
Bo-Christer<br>
<br>
<br>
On 11/29/13 1:17 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE7iXOgUtQNc+QWsgZ6oaK_pXoUG8uKv4mxR329TEU2gF+h=Dw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bo-Christer Björk
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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">
<div>
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE7iXOgUtQNc+QWsgZ6oaK_pXoUG8uKv4mxR329TEU2gF+h=Dw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>