<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Jan Velterop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com" target="_blank">velterop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<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 style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><blockquote type="cite">
<span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important"><b>SH:</b></span><span style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;float:none;display:inline!important"> (2) And once they become big and successful one is also struck by how the differences between the OA publishers and the subscription publishers shrink (both for for-profit OA publishers like Springer/BMC and not-for-profits like PLoS).</span></blockquote>
</div><div><b>JV:</b> In what way, Stevan? Isn't the only difference that truly counts for open access that they publish only 'born' open access articles? (PLOS and BMC; not the other Springer divisions). Or is it success itself you have something against? Or that they provide a 'gold' route to open access?</div>
<div><br></div><div>By the way, their 'gold' OA publishing is completely compatible with 'green', in that the final articles they publish can be deposited in any repository, very easily, without embargo or any other restrictions. And that they can be text- and data-mined without having to ask prior permission. And re-used otherwise, even commercially, without having to ask prior permission. </div>
<div><br></div><div>So what's your beef? (Sorry, I know you're a vegetarian, to which I am sympathetic.)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> (1) First, it is true that Springer has consistently behaved properly in officially sanctioning the immediate, unembargoed Green OA self-archiving of all Springer authors' final drafts in their institutional repository -- even if a bit of <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:%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">Elsevier</a>-inspired <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+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg">double-talk</a> (meaningless and inconsequential, but confusing to authors) has crept into their language of late.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(2) Second, it is not Springer's paid Gold (whether pure BMC or hybrid) that is exemplary, but Springer's <i>unembargoed immediate-Green policy</i>. While institutions still need to pay for must-have subscriptions, Gold is over-priced, double-paid (subscriptions + Gold) and, if hybrid, potentially also double-dipped: "<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=fool's+gold+blogurl:http:%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">Fool's Gold</a>" until universally mandated Green downsizes it to Post-Green "<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=%22fair+gold%22+blogurl:http:%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">Fair Gold</a>" and releases the subscription funds to pay for it. </div>
<div><br></div><div>(3) Open access is not enough: it also has to be <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=(membership+OR+scaleable+OR+sustainable)+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">affordable, scaleable and sustainable</a>.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(4) Universally mandated Green OA will not only induce cost-cutting, downsizing and conversion to affordable, scaleable, sustainable Fair Gold OA, but to all the re-use rights users need ("Libre OA"). While most content is still held hostage to subscription tolls, re-use rights for the small (and arbitrary) fragment of it that can afford Fool's Gold are (as is being debated on another thread) near-useless.</div>
<div><br></div><div>---</div><div><br></div><div>[<b>Off-Topic:</b> I am no longer vegetarian but vegan, as I ought to have been all along, had it not been for my <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/elise-desaulniers/vegetarian_b_3361223.html">self-delusion and hypocrisy</a>, for which I am profoundly ashamed. Animal suffering is immeasurably more important and urgent than OA. There is no comparison between the monstrous abominations of the <a href="http://www.occupyforanimals.org/animal-kill-counter.html">meat, fish, dairy, egg and fur industries</a>, and the peccadilloes of the publishing industry.]</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div></div></div></div>