<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 12, 2014, at 4:50 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">
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Were you perhaps thinking that repositories just contain unpublished preprints and gray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 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 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 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>