Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away?

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:00:20 -0400

Threading: [BOAI] Is Green Open Access in the process of fading away? from richard.poynder AT
      • This Message

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 

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> 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 
> 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 
> 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:
> --      
> To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:

ATTACHMENT: message.html!

-- To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail: .