<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.6">
</HEAD>
<BODY LINK="#0000ff">
Many thanks for all this, Marc.<BR>
<BR>
DOAJ is doing all it can to provide solid information for over 10,000 legitimate titles. I continue to think that much of the vetting work could be organized as a distributed task by libraries all over the world. it is just a question of establishing standards, protocols, work flows perhaps, and spreading the task around. Can't the library associations work together to help DOAJ? This sounds like such an obvious and elementary question. To start with, ARL, CARL, LIBER, etc. could quickly confer to get the ball rolling. DOAJ needs and deserves your support.<BR>
<BR>
As for Jeffrey Beall, his position would be so much more appreciated if he approached this issue positively. He too could help if he wanted to. And his reputation would be much better if he did.<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
--
<PRE>
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE>
<BR>
<BR>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
Le vendredi 14 août 2015 à 20:44 +0000, Couture Marc a écrit :
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Hi all,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The problem is that the two following peer-reviewed papers (both published in 2012, by the way, so I had thought it was one of them) conclude that the majority of OA journals don’t charge APC’s.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
David J Solomon, D. J. & Björk, B.-C. (2012). A Study of Open Access Journals Using Article Processing Charges. <I>JASIST, 63</I>(8), 1485-1495. Manuscript (accepted version) retrieved from <A HREF="http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/preprint.pdf">http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/apc2/preprint.pdf</A> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Laakso, M. & Björk, B.-C. (2012). Anatomy of open access publishing: A study of longitudinal development and internal structure. <I>BMC Medicine</I>, <I>10</I>, 124. Retrieved from <A HREF="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/124">http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/124</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I had previously read them in depth, and hadn’t found any flaw in their methodology. Neither did the reviewers, obviously.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
However, to get a more complete picture, one must also consider the proportion of articles published each year. According to Laakso and Björk (2012), a slight majority of OA articles published in 2011 required APCs (the exact figure is hard to tell, for reasons I understood fully after a private discussion with one of the authors).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
So, to minimize any risk of misleading, one could safely say that:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- A fair majority of OA journals don’t ask APCs.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- APCs are paid for a majority of OA papers (assuming waivers are not widely granted).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
By the way, it seems that APC figures in DOAJ website are being updated (along with all the new metadata), so one can’t get any reliable data there for the time being (the figure is 6% with APCs, but with very partial coverage as reveals a quick inspection of the available spreadsheet).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Marc Couture<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<B>De :</B> Beall, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu] <BR>
<B>Envoyé :</B> 14 août 2015 15:30<BR>
<B>À :</B> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<BR>
<B>Cc :</B> Couture Marc<BR>
<B>Objet :</B> RE: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
Dr. Couture is correct that the passage I cited does not itself cite the 2012 SOAP study, and I apologize for this error. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Here is what I really should have included: <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
"The overwhelming majority (nearly 70%) of OA journals charge no APCs. Moreover, when they do charge APCs, the fees are usually paid by funders (59%) or by universities (24%). Only 12% of the time are they paid by authors out of pocket. See Table 4 of the comprehensive Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP). <A HREF="http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260">http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260</A>"<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This passage is from Dr. Peter Suber's blog here:<A HREF="https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/K1UE3XDk9E9">https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/K1UE3XDk9E9</A><BR>
<BR>
I also got the year of the SOAP study wrong; it was 2011, not 2012. Dr. Suber's blog post quoted above is from April 5, 2013.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Jeffrey Beall<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<B>From:</B><A HREF="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> [<A HREF="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Couture Marc<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Friday, August 14, 2015 12:56 PM<BR>
<B>To:</B> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
Hi all,<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Well, I don’t know exactly what part of Jeffrey Beall’s post Dana Roth agrees with, but I’m wondering about that part of the same post: <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
"most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at all." [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn from it.<BR>
<BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I found no link to or mention of a 2012 study in the cited blog post (by Peter Suber). Before we go any further (if need be), perhaps we should ask Mr Beall to tell us what study he alludes to, so that we can judge by ourselves the validity of conclusions such as the one in the excerpt quoted.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Marc Couture<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<B>De :</B><A HREF="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> [<A HREF="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>] <B>De la part de</B> Dana Roth<BR>
<B>Envoyé :</B> 14 août 2015 13:40<BR>
<B>À :</B> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<BR>
<B>Objet :</B> [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
I strongly agree with Jeffrey Beall ... journals, like 'ACS Central Science', that provide OA without author charges need to be recognized and applauded!<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Dana L. Roth<BR>
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32<BR>
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125<BR>
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540<BR>
<A HREF="mailto:dzrlib@library.caltech.edu">dzrlib@library.caltech.edu</A><BR>
<A HREF="http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm">http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<DIV ALIGN=center>
<HR ALIGN="center">
</DIV>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<B>From:</B><A HREF="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> [goal-bounces@eprints.org] on behalf of Stevan Harnad [amsciforum@gmail.com]<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Friday, August 14, 2015 9:16 AM<BR>
<B>To:</B> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
1. Green OA means <I>OA provided by the author</I> (usually by self-archiving the refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository) <BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
2. Gold OA means OA <I>provided by the journal</I> (often for a publication fee)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
3. Gratis OA means free online access.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
There is no "Platinum" OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms (of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the latter not to be confused with "gratis"])<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Stevan Harnad, <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Erstwhile Archivangelist<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Beall, Jeffrey <<A HREF="mailto:Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu">Jeffrey.Beall@ucdenver.edu</A>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
For the record, some also use the term "platinum open access," which refers to open-access publications for which the authors are not charged (no charge to the author and no charge to the reader). Using this term brings great clarity to discussions of open-access journals and author fees. Using "gold" to refer both to journals that charge authors (gold) and those that do not charge authors (platinum) leads to confusion, ambiguity, and misunderstanding.<BR>
<BR>
Some have abused the term "gold open access" to promote open access, proclaiming, for example, that "most peer-reviewed open access journals charge no fees at all." [1] This misleading statement is based on a 2012 study that examined a non-representative subset of open-access journals, a limited cohort, so conclusions that apply to all OA journals cannot, and should not, be drawn from it.<BR>
<BR>
Jeffrey Beall<BR>
<BR>
[1]. <A HREF="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard">http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/open-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard</A><BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A> [mailto:<A HREF="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</A>] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley<BR>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 8:56 AM<BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</A><BR>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues<BR>
<BR>
Thanks Helene,<BR>
<BR>
Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which because I put the terms in a different order.<BR>
<BR>
Gold open access is 'born' open access - because it is published open in an open access journal (with or without a cost), or in a hybrid journal where the remainder of the journal remains under subscription (always incurs a cost). There are many, many times that the terms 'gold open access' has been taken to mean 'pay for open access'. Publishers of course have done little to dissuade this impression.<BR>
<BR>
Green open access is 'secondary' open access because it is published in a traditional manner (usually a susbcription journal) and a copy of the work is placed in a repository - institutional or subject.<BR>
<BR>
I hope that is a bit clearer. I agree it would not be easy to change. But we all used to call things preprints and postprints. That really made no sense because post-prints were not yet printed. We do not use those terms any more, not in the UK anyway. We use the terms Submitted Manuscript, Author's Accepted Manuscript (AAM) and Version of Record (VoR).<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
<BR>
Danny<BR>
<BR>
> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was<BR>
> scrubbed...<BR>
> URL:<BR>
> <A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150814/8a9">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150814/8a9</A><BR>
> 4cdff/attachment-0001.html<BR>
><BR>
> ------------------------------<BR>
><BR>
> Message: 2<BR>
> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:28:01 +0200<BR>
> From: H?l?ne.Bosc <<A HREF="mailto:hbosc-tchersky@orange.fr">hbosc-tchersky@orange.fr</A>><BR>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues<BR>
> To: "Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)"<BR>
> <<A HREF="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</A>><BR>
> Message-ID: <8A81FFDC57274D9287431EE2740BA515@PCdeHelene><BR>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>
><BR>
> Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in changing OA names!<BR>
> But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it has been<BR>
> adopted for years now by all institutions, for example in European<BR>
> reports, since 2006. See the last one in June 2015 :<BR>
> <A HREF="http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-informati">http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-informati</A><BR>
> on<BR>
><BR>
> Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as Open Access. But the difficulty will be to get the change worldwide.<BR>
><BR>
> Nicolas Pettiaux, for example proposed in a previous mail, "Libre" instead of "Open Access"!<BR>
><BR>
> Therefore mixing his idea with your option, "Born Open Access" and<BR>
> "Secondary Open Access" could become "Born Libre" and "Trying to get<BR>
> Libre"... ;-)<BR>
><BR>
> BTW, I am not sure that I have well understood what means Green and what means Gold in your proposition!<BR>
><BR>
> We could play on this list to find best definition and vote for it! But the aim of Open Access is not to find the best OA word for 2015, then for 2016 and for 2020! The aim is to stay clear for all stake holders, at the time of important political decisions are taken. Policy makers seem to have understood what is Green and what is Gold. They need only to have more details on the true Gold and Green roads which really conduct to OA.<BR>
><BR>
> To be efficient today, we just need to repeat what is precisely Green or Gold, and how to get it, in each publication, conference, blog and forum, as Stevan Harnad and Jean-Claude Gu?don do it for years now.<BR>
><BR>
> H?l?ne Bosc<BR>
> ----- Original Message -----<BR>
> From: Danny Kingsley<BR>
> To: <A HREF="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</A><BR>
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 6:56 PM<BR>
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Hi all,<BR>
><BR>
> There is some appetite it seems for looking at definitions at the moment. In the last couple of weeks I have tweeted about the following:<BR>
><BR>
> a.. COAR has a 'Resource Type Vocabulary Draft' - standard naming of items in repositories available for comment - <A HREF="https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/deliverables/">https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/deliverables/</A><BR>
> b.. Open Research Glossary' so we can all be more informed about vastly complex topic 'Open Scholarship' - <A HREF="http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/2015/07/14/the-open-research-glossary-round-2/">http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/2015/07/14/the-open-research-glossary-round-2/</A><BR>
> c.. 'We hope to build a common dictionary of terms about open access to facilitate sharing of information' http:// <A HREF="http://dictionary.casrai.org/Open_Access_APC_Report">http://dictionary.casrai.org/Open_Access_APC_Report</A><BR>
> My issue is with the terms 'green' and 'gold' which are entirely arbitrary. The main problem I have is that 'gold' implies 'the best' and it implies 'expensive' and it is not necessarily either.<BR>
><BR>
> If we have an option I think we should refer to these two routes to OA as 'Born Open Access' and 'Secondary Open Access'. Considerably more understandable to the external audience.<BR>
><BR>
> Danny<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<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">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A><BR>
<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">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>