<div dir="ltr"><div>On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><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"><div><div><div><div>List members may be aware that Elsevier sent out thousands of take-down notices for Green OA yesterday. See <a href="http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/" target="_blank">http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/</a> and much twitter discussion.<br>
<br></div>These manuscripts are Green. They are self archived by authors after publication. <br><br></div>But this is forbidden by Elsevier - the manuscripts can only be posted in an Institutional Repository (and then, I assume, only if there is no mandate requiring deposition).<br>
<br></div>This is lunacy and it's to the discredit of the academics that they play this convoluted and sterile game created by the publishers. Publishers' reason for insisting on IRs over Academia.edu is that readers actually use Academia. <br>
<br></div>The purpose of the BOAI declaration was to make scholarship available to everyone. This farce makes scholarship available to almost no-one.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Don't (just) boycott or fulminate: Deposit!</div>
<div><br></div><div>Elsevier may have enough clout with take-down notices to 3rd-party service providers (and might be able to weather the backlash blizzard that will follow) -- but not with institutions self-archiving their own research output.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I take this as yet another cue to push 100% for immediate institutional deposit mandates and the Button from all institutions and funders. </div><div><br></div><div>Since 2004 Elsevier formally recognizes their authors' right to do immediate, unembargoed OA self-archiving on their institutional website. </div>
<div><br></div><div>And even if they ever do try to rescind that, closed-access deposit is immune to take-down notices. </div><div><br></div><div>(But I don't think Elsevier will dare arouse that global backlash by rescinding its 9-year policy of endorsing unembargoed Green OA -- they will instead try to hope that they can either bluff authors off with their empty-double-talk about "systematicity" and "voluntariness" or buy their institutions off by sweetening their publication deal on condition they don't mandate Green OA…)</div>
<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 dir="ltr"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 12:01 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"><div>On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:00 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:</div><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><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>
<br>
The Elsevier study on OA prevalence study was part of broader
report. The methods are just shortly mentioned so its a bit
problematic to comment in detail.<br>
The global gold OA share found is 9,7 % of scopus articles,
consisting of 5,5 % APC paid and 4,2 others (not just 5.5 % as
Stevan noted below). The global hybrid share is 0.5. The green
global share could be assumed to more or less be the sum of
preprint versions of 6.4 % and accepted versions 5.0 %, adding
directly to around 11 %. In particular if their method only took
the first found full text copy and then classified it<br>
<br>
The big flaw of the study seems to be in the sample used, since it
consisted of equal numbers of Scopus articles that had been
published 2 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months before the
Googling. If the hits are simple added up for all the sampled
articles this means that a major share of selfarchivied
manuscripts are ignored, due to embargoes or author behavior in
for instance selfarchiving once a year. For instance half of the
copies in PMC would not be found in this way. Equally the very low
figure for "Open Archives", 1.0 %, could be a result of this
method. Our own results for delayed OA are around 5 %.<br>
<br>
So all in all the figures are much lower than if one includes
articles made OA with at least a one year delay, which we find is
the method we would recommend for studies claiming to give overall
OA uptake figures. Whether this methodological choice was a
conscious one from the study team or just an oversight is
difficult to know. But if they would have adhered to a strict
interpretation that only immediate OA is OA, the sampling should
have been different. Now it's somewhere in between.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Bo-Christer is quite right. Elsevier's arbitrary (and somewhat self-serving) 6-category classification system (each of whose categories is curiously labelled a "publishing system") leaves much to be desired:</div>
<div><br></div><div><div>1. Gold Open Access </div><div>2. Hybrid</div><div>3. Subsidised</div><div>4. Open Archives</div><div>5. Green Open Access: Pre-print versions</div><div>6. Green Open Access: Accepted Author Manuscript versions</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>It is not just what Elsevier called "Gold Open Access" that was Gold Open Access, but also what they called "Subsidised." The difference is merely that what they called Gold was publishing-fee-based Gold and what they called subsidized was subsidy-based Gold. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Elsevier also neglected to mention that "Subsidised" did not necessarily mean subsidized either: There are also subscription-based journals that make their online versions free immediately upon publication; hence they are likewise Gold OA journals.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What Elsevier called "Open Archives" is also not what it sounds like: It seems to be <i>Delayed Access</i> articles, accessible only after a publisher embargo, either on the publisher's website or in another central website, such as PubMed Central, where publishers also deposit, sometimes immediately, sometimes after an embargo.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The two Green Open Access categories are also ambiguous.The pre-print versions are (correctly) described as pre-refereeing drafts (but it would take a lot closer analysis to determine whether the pre-prints differ from the refereed version. It is easy to determine whether they were posted before the official publication date but far from easy to determine whether they were posted before refereeing. (The date of the letter of acceptance of the refereed draft is often one that only the author and the editor know -- though it is in some cases printed in the journal: did Elsevier look at that too?)</div>
<div><br></div><div>The post-refereeing author's drafts are presumably what they are described as being, but it is not clear by what criteria Elsevier distinguished them from pre-refeeeing drafts (except when they were in an institutional repository and specifically tagged as unrefereed).</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, as Bo-Christer points out, there are many methodological questions about the data without whose answers their meaningfulness and interpretability is limited. I would say that the timing issue is perhaps the most important one. And to sort things out I would like to propose a different system of classification:</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Open Access (OA):</b> The term OA should be reserved for immediate OA, regardless whether it is provided by the publisher (Gold) or the author (Green). A reasonable error-margin for OA should be<i> within 3 months or less from publication date</i>. Anything longer begins to overlap with publisher embargoes (of 6, 12, 24 months or longer).</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Delayed Access (DA): </b>The term DA should be used for delays of more than 6 months. And besides the usefulness of separately counting 6, 12, and 24 month DA, DA should also be analyzed as a continuous variable, reckoned in months starting from the date of publication (including negative delays, when authors post the refereed draft during the interval from acceptance date to publication date. The unrefereed preprint, however, should not be mixed into this; it should be treated as a separate point of comparison.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So there is <b>Gold OA</b> (immediate), <b>Green OA</b> (immediate), <b>Gold DA</b> and <b>Green DA</b> (measured by 6-month intervals as well as continuously in months. </div><div><br></div><div>If a separate distinction is sought within Gold, then fee-based Gold, subsidy-based Gold and subscription-based Gold can be compared, for both OA and DA. The locus of deposit of the Gold is not relevant, but the fact that it was done by the publisher rather than the author (or the author's assigns) is extremely relevant.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For Green OA and DA it is also important to compare locus of deposit (institutional vs. institution-external). See mandates below.</div><div><br></div><div>In all cases independence and redundancy should uniformly be controlled: Whenever a positive "hit" is made in any category, it has to be checked whether there are any instances of the same paper in other categories. Otherwise the data are not mutually exclusive.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If desired, all the above can be further subdivided in terms of <b>Gratis</b> (free online access) and <b>Libre</b> (free online access plus re-use rights) OA and DA.</div><div><br></div><div>Tracking Gold has the advantage of having clear unambiguous timing (except if the publication date differs from the date the journal actually appears) and of being exhaustively searchable without having to sample or check (if one has an index of the Gold OA and DA journals).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Tracking Green is much harder, but it must be done, because the fight for OA is rapidly becoming the fight against embargoes. That's why Green OA should be reserved for immediate access. It is almost certain that within the next few years most journals will become Gold DA (with an embargo of 12 months). Hence 12 months is the figure to beat, and Green DA after 18 months will not be of much use at all.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And the best way to push for immediate Green OA, is to upgrade all Green mandates to require <i>immediate institutional deposit</i>, irrespective of how long an embargo the mandate allows on DA. Requiring immediate deposit does not guarantee immediate OA, but it guarantees immediate Almost-OA, mediated by the repository's automated copy-request Button, requiring only one click from the requestor and one click from the author. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The immediate-deposit requirement plus the Button not only fits all OA mandates (no matter how they handle embargoes of copyright), making it possible for all institutions and funders to adopt it universally, but it also delivers the greatest amount of immediate access for 100% of deposits: immediate Green OA for X% plus (100-X)% Button-mediated Almost OA. And this, in turn will increase the universal demand for immediacy to the point where publisher embargoes will no longer be able to plug the flood-gates and the research community will have the 100% immediate Green OA it should have had ever since the creation of the web made it possible by making it possible to free the genie from the bottle,</div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div> </div><div><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div></font></span><div><div><br></div><div><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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>
<br> On 12/6/13 5:31 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><span>Elsevier has just conducted and published a
study commissioned by UK BIS: "</span><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-international-comparison-2013" target="_blank">International
Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base – 2013</a><span>"</span><br>
<br>
<span>This study finds twice as much Green OA (11.6%) as Gold OA
(5.9%) in the UK (where both</span><a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/10inbrief.html#HARNAD" target="_blank">Green
OA repositories</a><span> and </span><a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm" target="_blank">Green
OA mandates</a><span> began) and about equal levels of Green
(5.0%) and Gold (5.5%) in the rest of the world.</span><br>
<br>
<span>There are methodological weaknesses in the Elsevier study,
which was based on SCOPUS data (Gold data are direct and based
on the whole data set, Green data are partial and based on
hand-sampling; timing is not taken into account; categories of
OA are often arbitrary and not mutually exclusive, etc). But
the overall pattern may have some validity.</span><br>
<br>
<span>What does it mean?</span><br>
<br>
<span>It means the effects of </span><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/geoname/geoname=5F2=5FGB.html" target="_blank">Green
OA mandates in the UK</a><span> -- where there are relatively
more of them, and they have been there for a half decade or
more -- are detectable, compared to the </span><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/geoname/" target="_blank">rest of the
world</a><span>, where mandates are relatively fewer.</span><br>
<br>
<span>But 11.6% Green is just a pale, partial indicator of how
much OA Green OA mandates generate: If instead of looking at
the world (where about 1% of institutions and funders have OA
mandates) or the UK (where the percentage is somewhat higher,
but many of the mandates are still weak and ineffective ones),
one looks specifically at the </span><a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/" target="_blank">OA percentages for
effectively mandated institutions</a><span>, the Green figure
jumps to over 80% (about half of it immediate-OA and half
embargoed OA: deposited, and accessible during the embargo via
the repository's automated copy-request Button, with a click
from the requestor and a click from the author).</span><br>
<br>
<span>So if the planet's current level of Green OA is 11.6%, its
level will jump to at least 80% as effective Green OA mandates
are adopted.</span><br>
<br>
<span>Meanwhile, Gold OA will continue to be unnecessary,
over-priced, double-paid (which journal subscriptions still
need to be paid) and potentially even double-dipped (if paid
to the same hybrid subscription/Gold publisher) out of scarce
research funds contributed by UK tax-payers ("</span><a href="https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=b-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=harnad+%28fools+OR+fool%27s%29+gold" target="_blank">Fool's
Gold</a><span>").</span><br>
<br>
<span>But once Green OA prevails worldwide, </span><a href="https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=b-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=harnad+%22fair+gold%22" target="_blank">Fair
Gold</a><span> (and all the Libre OA re-use rights that users
need and authors want to provide) will not be far behind.</span><br>
<br>
<span>We are currently gathering data to test whether the </span><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" target="_blank">immediate-deposit</a><span> (</span><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" target="_blank">HEFCE</a><span>/</span><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" target="_blank">Liege</a><span>)
Green OA mandate model is indeed the most effective mandate
(compared, for example, with the </span><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=Harvard+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg" target="_blank">Harvard</a><span> copyright-retention
model with opt-out, or the </span><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=NIH+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg" target="_blank">NIH</a><span> model
with a 12 month embargo).</span><br>
<br>
<strong>Stevan Harnad</strong><br>
<br>
<span>P.S. Needless to say, the fact that the UK's Green OA rate
is twice as high as its Gold OA rate is true </span><em>despite</em><span> the
new </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1074-html" target="_blank">Finch/FCUK
policy</a><span> which subsidizes and prefers Gold and tries
to downgrade Green -- certainly not because of it!</span><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div></div><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>
<a href="tel:%2B44-1223-763069" value="+441223763069" target="_blank">+44-1223-763069</a>
</font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>