<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Oct 13, 2014, at 1:06 PM, Marcin Wojnarski <<a href="mailto:mwojnarski@paperity.org">mwojnarski@paperity.org</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Repositories are not an authoritative source of metadata about
paper-journal relation.</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Metadata is put there by authors themselves
and it can be missing, incomplete or</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">erroneous, in extreme cases
even fake. Thus in practice repository collections are</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">flat even if
metadata is present.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Are you looking for “authoritative metadata” or metadata of OA journal articles?</div><div><br></div><div>The majority of OA journal articles are Green, not Gold. Focussing on the Gold</div><div>because it is more “authoritative” calls to mind the joke about the drunkard who</div><div>prefers to keep looking for his keys by the lamp-post because it is brighter there.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">If you think that finding Green articles is impossible, then you
shall not be surprised that</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">we focus on Gold first, right?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I certainly did not say it was impossible! (We do it all the time! So does Google Scholar.) </div><div>I only said it was not as easy as it is to just go to DOAJ journal websites (the lamp-post)</div><div>for only the Gold.</div><div><br></div><div>And I think the preoccupation with “authoritative” sources of metadata is monumentally</div><div>misplaced. (In fact, the notion of “aggregation” is probably obsolescent too): we have journal</div><div>articles all over the web, and all that’s needed is a way to <i>find</i> them. Google Scholar’s</div><div>pretty good, and can potentially be made even better. But what’s missing now is not</div><div>a better harvester or more “authoritative” metadata, but <i>more OA articles</i> (whether</div><div>Gold or Green). Only about 30% of journal articles published today are OA (the majority </div><div>of it Green). The fastest and surest (and cheapest) way to provide the remaining 70% is </div><div>to mandate and provide Green.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/13/2014 02:14 PM, Stevan Harnad
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:401C70D8-E260-49A7-A06D-6483433D9D72@ecs.soton.ac.uk" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
On Oct 12, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Marcin Wojnarski <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mwojnarski@paperity.org">mwojnarski@paperity.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Dear Stevan,<br>
We started with Gold, because we believe that journals play
a fundamental role in the system</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> of scholarly
communication and every service that tries to facilitate
access to literature must</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">start with journals, not
only with a flat collection of papers like the one found in
repositories. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Dear Marcin,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think there may be a fundamental misunderstanding here.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Green OA consists of self-archived <b>journal articles</b>
and their bibliographic metadata — including</div>
<div>journal name.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And institutional repositories consist of an institution’s <b>journal
article</b> output.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nothing “flat” about those!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Were you perhaps thinking that repositories just contain
unpublished preprints and gray</div>
<div>literature?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">For 400 years, journals
have been the backbone of the system, the main structural
element. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I don’t understand why you are pointing this out: From the very
outset the Open Access movement </div>
<div>has been very specifically about opening access to <b>journal
articles</b>. Please see the original BOAI statement:</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read">http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding:
0px;">
<div><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><i>"The literature
that should be freely accessible online is that which
scholars </i></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><i>give to the world
without expectation of payment. Primarily, this category </i></span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"><i>encompasses their <b>peer-reviewed
journal articles</b>…"</i></font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">They provide a brand
name for papers, create consistent editoral policy and take
responsibility</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">for the quality and
relevance of articles they publish - these features are of
topmost importance</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">for readers, without
them navigating through millions of articles becomes
infeasible.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Marcin, it remains clear why you are telling us this. We all
know it. What I asked you was:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding:
0px;">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote cite="mid:AE0EAD8D-CF20-442C-88D8-DD621988F52D@ecs.soton.ac.uk" type="cite">Harvesting Gold OA journal articles is a
piece of cake. How will Paperity/redex harvest</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote cite="mid:AE0EAD8D-CF20-442C-88D8-DD621988F52D@ecs.soton.ac.uk" type="cite">
<div><b>Green OA articles published in non-OA journals</b>
but made OA somewhere on the</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote cite="mid:AE0EAD8D-CF20-442C-88D8-DD621988F52D@ecs.soton.ac.uk" type="cite">
<div>Web </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">That said, we're fully
aware how much great unique content there is in repositories
and we’d</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">like very much to merge
these two streams - Gold and Green - in Paperity at some
point. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The great unique content in repositories is the very same
great unique content that there is in journals.</div>
<div>Gold OA and Green OA both consist of <b>journal articles</b>.
There are many more non-Gold journals</div>
<div>and non-Gold journal-articles than Gold ones. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why is Paperity focusing on Gold?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why is all the rest only to be merged "at some point”?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And how, exactly?</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Although there are some
tensions inside OA community between the Gold and Green
camps,</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">I think they are
unjustified, because these routes are complementary, not
competitive. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
You are quite right, the two roads to OA are complementary, not
competitive.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But in order to complement one another they must both be
clearly understood, and much</div>
<div>of the tension is about misunderstandings, for example, that
OA = Gold OA while Green OA</div>
<div>is about something else (preprints, gray literature).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And another point of tension is about priorities: Which needs
to come first, Gold or Green?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(My own reply is that it is for many important reasons Green
that must come first: (1) because </div>
<div>Green does not cost the author money, (2) because Green can
be mandated by institutions and </div>
<div>funders, and (3) because by coming first Green will make
subscriptions unsustainable, force</div>
<div>journals to cut obsolete costs, downsize to providing peer
review alone, and convert to</div>
<div>to affordable, sustainable, Fair Gold instead of today’s
over-priced, double-paid pre-Green Fools Gold.</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://j.mp/fairgoldOA">http://j.mp/fairgoldOA</a></div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">As to indexing, it is
actually much easier to be done for repositories than for
journals,</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">because most repos
expose standardized interfaces. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then why is Paperity starting with Gold OA journal articles
instead of Green OA journal</div>
<div>articles in repositories?</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">So we don't need Google
Scholar for this purpose, only as I said, we believe that
the</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">right order is journals
first.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
What you have said it that you believe the right order is Gold
OA first, but you have</div>
<div>certainly not explained why — apart from the fact that Gold
OA is certainly much</div>
<div><i>easier</i> to access and aggregate:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Gold OA journal article blibliographic data can be harvested
from the journals’</div>
<div>websites using DOAJ to identify all the journals.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But how are you going to find all the Green OA journal
articles, if not with</div>
<div>Google Scholar? (WoS or SCOPUS can find you all journal
articles, but</div>
<div>but won’t tell you which ones are Green OA.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(BASE provides some of these data; ROAR 2.0 will soon provide
it all.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes,</div>
<div>Stevan</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <br>
Best<br>
Marcin<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/12/2014 01:51 PM, Stevan
Harnad wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:AE0EAD8D-CF20-442C-88D8-DD621988F52D@ecs.soton.ac.uk" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Harvesting Gold OA journal articles is a piece of cake.
How will Paperity/redex harvest
<div>Green OA articles published in non-OA journals but
made OA somewhere on the</div>
<div>Web — via Google Scholar?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sounds like a splendid idea if it can be done… But
not if it is just Gold-biassed,</div>
<div>because most refereed research is not Gold, and the
fastest growing form of</div>
<div>OA is Green (because of mandates, and absence of
extra cost).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SH</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Marcin Wojnarski, Founder of Paperity, <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paperity.org/">www.paperity.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski">www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/Paperity">www.facebook.com/Paperity</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/Paperity">www.twitter.com/Paperity</a>
Paperity. Open science aggregated.
</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<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><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<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>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Marcin Wojnarski, Founder of Paperity, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.paperity.org/">www.paperity.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski">www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.facebook.com/Paperity">www.facebook.com/Paperity</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.twitter.com/Paperity">www.twitter.com/Paperity</a>
Paperity. Open science aggregated.
</pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>GOAL mailing list<br><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>