Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away?
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Both the perverse effects of the UK's Finch/RCUK policy and their antidote are ↵ as simple to describe and understand as they were to predict: The Perverse Effects of the Finch/RCUK Policy: Besides being eager to cash in ↵ on the double-paid (subscription fees + Gold OA fees), double-dipped ↵ over-priced hybrid Gold bonanza that Finch/RCUK has foolishly dangled before ↵ their eyes, publishers like Emerald are also trying to hedge their bets and ↵ clinch the deal by adopting or extending Green OA embargoes to try to force ↵ authors to pick and pay for the hybrid Gold option instead of picking cost-free ↵ Green. The Antidote to the Perverse Effects of the Finch/RCUK Policy: To remedy this, ↵ both funders and institutions need merely (1) distinguish deposit-date from the ↵ date that access to the deposit is made OA, (2) mandate immediate-deposit, and ↵ (3) implement the repository's facilitated eprint request Button to tide over ↵ user needs during any OA embargo. All funders and institutions can and should adopt the immediate-deposit mandate ↵ immediately. Together with the Button it moots embargoes (and once widely ↵ adopted, will ensure emargoes' inevitable and deserved demise). And as an insurance policy (and a fitting one, to counterbalance publishers' ↵ insurance policy of prolonging Green embargoes to try to force authors to pay ↵ for hybrid Gold) funders and institutions should (4) designate date-stamped ↵ immediate-deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting published papers for ↵ annual performance review (e.g., the Liège policy) or for national research ↵ assessment (as HEFCE has proposed for REF). As to the page that Emerald has borrowed from Elsevier, consisting of ↵ pseudo-legal double-talk implying that "you may deposit immediately if you needn't, but not if you must" That is pure FUD and can and should be completely ignored. (Any author foolish ↵ enough to be taken in by such double-talk deserves all the needless usage and ↵ impact losses they will get!) Stevan Harnad On 2013-06-17, at 5:22 PM, Richard Poynder <richard.poynder AT ↵ btinternet.com> wrote: > When last July Research Councils UK (RCUK) announced its new Open Access ↵ (OA) policy it sparked considerable controversy, not least because the policy ↵ required researchers to “prefer” Gold OA (OA publishing) over Green OA ↵ (self-archiving). The controversy was such that earlier this year the House of ↵ Lords Science & Technology Committee launched an inquiry into the ↵ implementation of the policy and the subsequent report was highly critical of ↵ RCUK. > > As a result of the criticism, RCUK published two clarifications. Amongst ↵ other things, this has seen Green OA reinstated as a viable alternative to ↵ Gold. At the same time, however, RCUK extended the permissible maximum embargo ↵ before papers can be self-archived from 12 to 24 months. OA advocates — who ↵ maintain that a six-month embargo is entirely adequate — responded by arguing ↵ that this would simply encourage publishers who did not have an embargo to ↵ introduce one, and those that did have one to lengthen it. As a result, they ↵ added, many research papers would be kept behind publishers’ paywalls ↵ unnecessarily. > > It has begun to appear that these warnings may have been right. Evidence ↵ that publishers have indeed begun to respond to RCUK’s policy in this way was ↵ presented during a second inquiry into OA — this time by the House of Commons ↵ Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) Committee. The Committee cited the case ↵ of a UK publisher who recently introduced a 24-month embargo where previously ↵ it did not have one. The publisher was not named, but it turns out to be a ↵ UK-based company called Emerald. > > Why did Emerald decide that an embargo is now necessary where previously ↵ it was not? Why do the details of the embargo on Emerald’s web site differ from ↵ the details sent to the publisher’s journal editors? And what does Emerald’s ↵ decision to introduce a two-year embargo presage for the development of Open ↵ Access? To my surprise, obtaining answers to the first two questions proved ↵ more difficult than I had anticipated. > > More here: > ↵ http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to..html > > > -- > To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: email@example.com .