Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: [SIGMETRICS] Elsevier Study Commissioned by UK BIS

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 07:56:08 -0500


--047d7b66f33f5bd5e904ecf14906
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2013-12-07, at 6:31 AM, "Bosman, J.M." <j.bosman AT UU.NL> 
wrote:

Stevan,
> Could you elaborate on your expectation that "It is almost certain 
that
> within the next few years most journals will become Gold DA (with an
> embargo of 12 months)". Do you already see publishers move in that
> direction or are there other reasons for your forecast?


It is an extrapolation and inference from the manifest pattern across the
last half-decade:

1. Publishers know (better than anyone) that OA is inevitable and
unstoppable, only delayable (via embargoes).

2. Publishers also know that it is the first year of sales that sustains
their subscriptions. (The talk about later sales is just hyperbole.)

3. Publishers have been fighting tooth and nail against Green OA mandates,
both via lobbying and via embargoes.

4. The majority of publishers with Green OA embargoes have an embargo of
one year (though 60%, including Elsevier and Springer, have no embargo at
all).

5. This 1-year Green OA embargo is publishers' realistic compromise: with
minimal loss, it wards off immediate Green OA, making Green mandates *Delay=
ed
Green Mandates* instead of Green OA Mandates.

6. Then as an added protection against losing control of their content,
more and more publishers are releasing it after a year on their own
proprietary websites after a year: *Delayed Gold*

The reasoning is that since free access after a year is a foregone
conclusion, because of Green mandates, it's better if that free access is
provided by publishers as Gold, so it all remains in their hands
(navigation, search, reference linking, re-use, re-publication, etc.).
1-year Gold also protects the version of record from being replaced by the
Green author's version. (Publishers even have a faint hope that 1-year Gold
might take the wind out of the sails of Green mandates and the clamor for
OA altogether: Everyone gets Gold access after a year, and that's the end
of it. Back to business as before -- unless the market prefers to pay the
same price that it pays for subscriptions, in exchange for immediate,
un-embargoed Gold OA (as in SCOAP3 or hybrid Gold).

But I think most publishers know that that is a pipe-dream, and that all
they are really doing is holding back the inevitable for as long as they
possibly can:

And* the inevitable is immediate Green OA*, with authors posting their
refereed, accepted final drafts immediately upon acceptance for
publication. That version will become the version of record, because
*subscriptions
to the publisher's print and online version will become unsustainable once
the Green OA version is free for all*.

Under cancellation pressure induced by immediate Green, publishers will
have to cut inessential costs by dropping the print and online version of
record, offloading all access-provision and archiving onto the global
network of Green OA institutional repositories, downsizing to the provision
of the peer review service alone, paid for, per paper, per round of peer
review, as Fair Gold (instead of today's over-priced, double-paid and
double-dipped Fool's Gold) out of a fraction of the institutional annual
windfall savings from their cancelled annual subscriptions.

So both the 1-year embargo on Green and the 1-year release of Gold are
attempts to fend off the above: *OA has become a fight for that first year
of access: researchers need and want it immediately; publishers want to
hold onto it unless they continue to be paid as much as they are being paid
now.*

But there is an antidote for publisher embargoes on immediate Green, and
that is the immediate-institutional-deposit mandate plus the copy-Request
Button (the HEFCE/Liege model mandate), designating the deposit of the
final refereed draft immediately upon acceptance for publication as the
sole mechanism for submitting publications for institutional performance
review and for compliance with funding conditions. Once those mandates are
universally adopted, universal OA will only be one keystroke away: The
keystroke that makes an embargoed deposit OA. And embargoes will very
quickly die their inevitable and well-deserved deaths under the mounting
global pressure for immediate OA (which will merely be enhanced by
Button-based Almost-OA).

There you have it: Speculation, but grounded in the pragmatics, logic and
evidence of what it actually going on today.


Grtz,
Jeroen Bosman



Op 7 dec. 2013 om 01:01 heeft "Stevan Harnad" <amsciforum AT 
GMAIL.COM> het
volgende geschreven:

Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bo-Christer Bj=F6rk <
bo-christer.bjork AT hanken.fi> wrote:

>
> The Elsevier study on OA prevalence study was part of broader report. The
> methods are just shortly mentioned so its a bit problematic to comment in
> detail.
> The global gold OA share found is 9,7 % of scopus articles, consisting of
> 5,5 % APC paid and 4,2 others (not just 5.5 % as Stevan noted below). The
> global hybrid share is 0.5. The green global share could be assumed to mo=
re
> or less be the sum of preprint versions of 6.4 % and accepted versions 5.=
0
> %, adding directly to around 11 %. In particular if their method only too=
k
> the first found full text copy and then classified it
>
> The big flaw of the study seems to be in the sample used, since it
> consisted of equal numbers of Scopus articles that had been published 2
> months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months before the Googling. If the hit=
s
> are simple added up for all the sampled articles this means that a major
> share of selfarchivied manuscripts are ignored, due to embargoes or autho=
r
> behavior in for instance selfarchiving once a year. For instance half of
> the copies in PMC would not be found in this way. Equally the very low
> figure for "Open Archives", 1.0 %, could be a result of this 
method. Our
> own results for delayed OA are around 5 %.
>
> So all in all the figures are much lower than if one includes articles
> made OA with at least a one year delay, which we find is the method we
> would recommend for studies claiming to give overall OA uptake figures.
> Whether this methodological choice was a conscious one from the study tea=
m
> or just an oversight is difficult to know. But if they would have adhered
> to a strict interpretation that only immediate OA is OA, the sampling
> should have been different. Now it's somewhere in between.
>

Bo-Christer is quite right. Elsevier's arbitrary (and somewhat
self-serving) 6-category classification system (each of whose categories is
curiously labelled a "publishing system") leaves much to be desired:

1. Gold Open Access
2. Hybrid
3. Subsidised
4. Open Archives
5. Green Open Access: Pre-print versions
6. Green Open Access: Accepted Author Manuscript versions

It is not just what Elsevier called "Gold Open Access" that was Gold 
Open
Access, but also what they called "Subsidised." The difference is 
merely
that what they called Gold was publishing-fee-based Gold and what they
called subsidized was subsidy-based Gold.

Elsevier also neglected to mention that "Subsidised" did not 
necessarily
mean subsidized either: There are also subscription-based journals that
make their online versions free immediately upon publication; hence they
are likewise Gold OA journals.

What Elsevier called "Open Archives" is also not what it sounds like: 
It
seems to be *Delayed Access* articles, accessible only after a publisher
embargo, either on the publisher's website or in another central website,
such as PubMed Central, where publishers also deposit, sometimes
immediately, sometimes after an embargo.

The two Green Open Access categories are also ambiguous.The pre-print
versions are (correctly) described as pre-refereeing drafts (but it would
take a lot closer analysis to determine whether the pre-prints differ from
the refereed version. It is easy to determine whether they were posted
before the official publication date but far from easy to determine whether
they were posted before refereeing. (The date of the letter of acceptance
of the refereed draft is often one that only the author and the editor know
-- though it is in some cases printed in the journal: did Elsevier look at
that too?)

The post-refereeing author's drafts are presumably what they are described
as being, but it is not clear by what criteria Elsevier distinguished them
from pre-refeeeing drafts (except when they were in an institutional
repository and specifically tagged as unrefereed).

So, as Bo-Christer points out, there are many methodological questions
about the data without whose answers their meaningfulness and
interpretability is limited. I would say that the timing issue is perhaps
the most important one. And to sort things out I would like to propose a
different system of classification:

*Open Access (OA):* The term OA should be reserved for immediate OA,
regardless whether it is provided by the publisher (Gold) or the author
(Green). A reasonable error-margin for OA should be* within 3 months or
less from publication date*. Anything longer begins to overlap with
publisher embargoes (of 6, 12, 24 months or longer).

*Delayed Access (DA): *The term DA should be used for delays of more than 6
months. And besides the usefulness of separately counting 6, 12, and 24
month DA, DA should also be analyzed as a continuous variable, reckoned in
months starting from the date of publication (including negative delays,
when authors post the refereed draft during the interval from acceptance
date to publication date. The unrefereed preprint, however, should not be
mixed into this; it should be treated as a separate point of comparison.

So there is *Gold OA* (immediate), *Green OA* (immediate), *Gold DA* and *G=
reen
DA* (measured by 6-month intervals as well as continuously in months.

If a separate distinction is sought within Gold, then fee-based Gold,
subsidy-based Gold and subscription-based Gold can be compared, for both OA
and DA. The locus of deposit of the Gold is not relevant, but the fact that
it was done by the publisher rather than the author (or the author's
assigns) is extremely relevant.

For Green OA and DA it is also important to compare locus of deposit
(institutional vs. institution-external). See mandates below.

In all cases independence and redundancy should uniformly be controlled:
Whenever a positive "hit" is made in any category, it has to be 
checked
whether there are any instances of the same paper in other categories.
Otherwise the data are not mutually exclusive.

If desired, all the above can be further subdivided in terms of *Gratis* (f=
ree
online access) and *Libre* (free online access plus re-use rights) OA and
DA.

Tracking Gold has the advantage of having clear unambiguous timing (except
if the publication date differs from the date the journal actually appears)
and of being exhaustively searchable without having to sample or check (if
one has an index of the Gold OA and DA journals).

Tracking Green is much harder, but it must be done, because the fight for
OA is rapidly becoming the fight against embargoes. That's why Green OA
should be reserved for immediate access. It is almost certain that within
the next few years most journals will become Gold DA (with an embargo of 12
months). Hence 12 months is the figure to beat, and Green DA after 18
months will not be of much use at all.

And the best way to push for immediate Green OA, is to upgrade all Green
mandates to require *immediate institutional deposit*, irrespective of how
long an embargo the mandate allows on DA. Requiring immediate deposit does
not guarantee immediate OA, but it guarantees immediate Almost-OA, mediated
by the repository's automated copy-request Button, requiring only one click
from the requestor and one click from the author.

The immediate-deposit requirement plus the Button not only fits all OA
mandates (no matter how they handle embargoes of copyright), making it
possible for all institutions and funders to adopt it universally, but it
also delivers the greatest amount of immediate access for 100% of deposits:
immediate Green OA for X% plus (100-X)% Button-mediated Almost OA. And
this, in turn will increase the universal demand for immediacy to the point
where publisher embargoes will no longer be able to plug the flood-gates
and the research community will have the 100% immediate Green OA it should
have had ever since the creation of the web made it possible by making it
possible to free the genie from the bottle,

*Stevan Harnad*



>         On 12/6/13 5:31 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> Elsevier has just conducted and published a study commissioned by UK BIS:=
 "International
> Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base =96 
2013<https://www.gov.=
uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-research-base-internationa=
l-comparison-2013>
> "
>
> This study finds twice as much Green OA (11.6%) as Gold OA (5.9%) in the
> UK (where bothGreen OA 
repositories<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/10=
inbrief.html#HARNAD>
>  and Green OA 
mandates<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm=
> began)
> and about equal levels of Green (5.0%) and Gold (5.5%) in the rest of the
> world.
>
> There are methodological weaknesses in the Elsevier study, which was base=
d
> on SCOPUS data (Gold data are direct and based on the whole data set, Gre=
en
> data are partial and based on hand-sampling; timing is not taken into
> account; categories of OA are often arbitrary and not mutually exclusive,
> etc). But the overall pattern may have some validity.
>
> What does it mean?
>
> It means the effects of Green OA mandates in the 
UK<http://roarmap.eprint=
s.org/view/geoname/geoname=3D5F2=3D5FGB.html> --
> where there are relatively more of them, and they have been there for a
> half decade or more -- are detectable, compared to the rest of the 
world<=
http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/geoname/>,
> where mandates are relatively fewer.
>
> But 11.6% Green is just a pale, partial indicator of how much OA Green OA
> mandates generate: If instead of looking at the world (where about 1% of
> institutions and funders have OA mandates) or the UK (where the percentag=
e
> is somewhat higher, but many of the mandates are still weak and ineffecti=
ve
> ones), one looks specifically at the OA percentages for effectively
> mandated institutions <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358882/>, the 
Green
> figure jumps to over 80% (about half of it immediate-OA and half embargoe=
d
> OA: deposited, and accessible during the embargo via the repository's
> automated copy-request Button, with a click from the requestor and a clic=
k
> from the author).
>
> So if the planet's current level of Green OA is 11.6%, its level will jum=
p
> to at least 80% as effective Green OA mandates are adopted.
>
> Meanwhile, Gold OA will continue to be unnecessary, over-priced,
> double-paid (which journal subscriptions still need to be paid) and
> potentially even double-dipped (if paid to the same hybrid
> subscription/Gold publisher) out of scarce research funds contributed by =
UK
> tax-payers ("Fool's 
Gold<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=3Dcr&ei=3Db-CUUuTZ=
NM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=3Dharnad+%28fools+OR+fool%27s%29+gold>
> ").
>
> But once Green OA prevails worldwide, Fair 
Gold<https://www.google.ca/?gw=
s_rd=3Dcr&ei=3Db-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=3Dharnad+%22fair+gold%22> (and
> all the Libre OA re-use rights that users need and authors want to provid=
e)
> will not be far behind.
>
> We are currently gathering data to test whether the 
immediate-deposit<htt=
ps://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20arc=
hivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=
=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3D%2=
2immediate+deposit%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=
=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg>
>  
(HEFCE<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harn=
ad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&=
tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den=
&lr=3D&q=3Dhefce+immediate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&s=
afe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg>
> 
/Liege<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harna=
d%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&t=
bm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&=
lr=3D&q=3Dliege+model++blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=
=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg>)
> Green OA mandate model is indeed the most effective mandate (compared, fo=
r
> example, with the 
Harvard<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3D=
harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprint=
s.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#=
c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3DHarvard+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.epri=
nts.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbas=3D0&tbm=3Dblg> copyright-retention
> model with opt-out, or the 
NIH<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D=
&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.e=
prints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dac=
tive#c2coff=3D1&hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3DNIH+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.epr=
ints.org%2F&safe=3Dactive&tbm=3Dblg> model
> with a 12 month embargo).
>
> *Stevan Harnad*
>
> P.S. Needless to say, the fact that the UK's Green OA rate is twice as
> high as its Gold OA rate is true *despite* the new Finch/FCUK 
policy<http=
://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1074-html> which
> subsidizes and prefers Gold and tries to downgrade Green -- certainly not
> because of it!
>
>

--047d7b66f33f5bd5e904ecf14906
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D""><div>On 
2013-12-07, at 6:31 AM, &quot;Bosm=
an, J.M.&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:j.bosman AT 
UU.NL">j.bosman AT UU.NL</a>&gt;=
 wrote:</div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div 
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
0.8ex;border-left-width:=
1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left=
:1ex">
Stevan,<br>Could you elaborate on your expectation that &quot;It is 
almost =
certain that within the next few years most journals will become Gold DA (w=
ith an embargo of 12 months)&quot;. Do you already see publishers move in 
t=
hat direction or are there other reasons for your forecast?</blockquote>
</div></blockquote><div 
class=3D""><br></div>It is an extrapolation and inf=
erence from the manifest pattern across the last 
half-decade:</div><div cla=
ss=3D""><br></div><div class=3D"">1. 
Publishers know (better than anyone) t=
hat OA is inevitable and unstoppable, only delayable (via 
embargoes).</div>
<div class=3D""><br></div><div 
class=3D"">2. Publishers also know that it i=
s the first year of sales that sustains their subscriptions. (The talk abou=
t later sales is just hyperbole.)</div><div 
class=3D""><br></div><div class=
=3D"">
3. Publishers have been fighting tooth and nail against Green OA mandates, =
both via lobbying and via embargoes.</div><div 
class=3D""><br></div><div cl=
ass=3D"">4. The majority of publishers with Green OA embargoes 
have an emba=
rgo of one year (though 60%, including Elsevier and Springer, have no embar=
go at all).</div>
<div class=3D""><br></div><div 
class=3D"">5. This 1-year Green OA embargo i=
s publishers&#39; realistic compromise: with minimal loss, it wards off 
imm=
ediate Green OA, making Green mandates <b>Delayed Green 
Mandates</b> instea=
d of Green OA Mandates.</div>
<div class=3D""><br></div><div 
class=3D"">6. Then as an added protection ag=
ainst losing control of their content, more and more publishers are releasi=
ng it after a year on their own proprietary websites after a year: 
<b>Delay=
ed Gold</b></div>
<div class=3D""><br></div><div 
class=3D"">The reasoning is that since free =
access after a year is a foregone conclusion, because of Green mandates, it=
&#39;s better if that free access is provided by publishers as Gold, so it 
=
all remains in their hands (navigation, search, reference linking, re-use, =
re-publication, etc.). 1-year Gold also protects the version of record from=
 being replaced by the Green author&#39;s version. (Publishers even have a 
=
faint hope that 1-year Gold might take the wind out of the sails of Green m=
andates and the clamor for OA altogether: Everyone gets Gold access after a=
 year, and that&#39;s the end of it. Back to business as before -- unless 
t=
he market prefers to pay the same price that it pays for subscriptions, in =
exchange for immediate, un-embargoed Gold OA (as in SCOAP3 or hybrid Gold).=
</div>
<div class=3D""><br></div><div 
class=3D"">But I think most publishers know =
that that is a pipe-dream, and that all they are really doing is holding ba=
ck the inevitable for as long as they possibly can:</div><div 
class=3D""><b=
r>
</div><div class=3D"">And<i>=A0the inevitable is 
immediate Green OA</i>, wi=
th authors posting their refereed, accepted final drafts immediately upon a=
cceptance for publication. That version will become the version of record, =
because <i>subscriptions to the publisher&#39;s print and online 
version wi=
ll become unsustainable once the Green OA version is free for 
all</i>.</div=
>
<div class=3D""><br></div><div 
class=3D"">Under cancellation pressure induc=
ed by immediate Green, publishers will have to cut inessential costs by dro=
pping the print and online version of record, offloading all access-provisi=
on and archiving onto the global network of Green OA institutional reposito=
ries, downsizing to the provision of the peer review service alone, paid fo=
r, per paper, per round of peer review, as Fair Gold (instead of 
today&#39;=
s over-priced, double-paid and double-dipped Fool&#39;s Gold) out of a 
frac=
tion of the institutional annual windfall savings from their cancelled annu=
al subscriptions.</div>
<div class=3D""><br></div><div 
class=3D"">So both the 1-year embargo on Gre=
en and the 1-year release of Gold are attempts to fend off the above: 
<i>OA=
 has become a fight for that first year of access: researchers need and wan=
t it immediately; publishers want to hold onto it unless they continue to b=
e paid as much as they are being paid now.</i></div>
<div class=3D""><br></div><div 
class=3D"">But there is an antidote for publ=
isher embargoes on immediate Green, and that is the immediate-institutional=
-deposit mandate plus the copy-Request Button (the HEFCE/Liege model mandat=
e), designating the deposit of the final refereed draft immediately upon ac=
ceptance for publication as the sole mechanism for submitting publications =
for institutional performance review and for compliance with funding condit=
ions. Once those mandates are universally adopted, universal OA will only b=
e one keystroke away: The keystroke that makes an embargoed deposit OA. And=
 embargoes will very quickly die their inevitable and well-deserved deaths =
under the mounting global pressure for immediate OA (which will merely be e=
nhanced by Button-based Almost-OA).</div>
<div class=3D""><br></div><div 
class=3D"">There you have it: Speculation, b=
ut grounded in the pragmatics, logic and evidence of what it actually going=
 on today.</div><div class=3D""><blockquote 
type=3D"cite"><div bgcolor=3D"#=
FFFFFF">
<div><br></div><div>Grtz,</div><div>Jeroen 
Bosman<br><br><br></div><div><br=
>Op 7 dec. 2013 om 01:01 heeft &quot;Stevan Harnad&quot; 
&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM">amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM</a>&gt; 
het volgende geschre=
ven:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote 
type=3D"cite">Adminstrative info for SIGME=
TRICS (for example unsubscribe):=A0<a 
href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/=
sigmetrics.html">http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a><div dir=
=3D"ltr">
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bo-Christer Bj=F6rk=A0<span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt=
;<a href=3D"mailto:bo-christer.bjork AT hanken.fi" 
target=3D"_blank">bo-christ=
er.bjork AT hanken.fi</a>&gt;</span>=A0wrote:<div 
class=3D"gmail_extra"><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote">
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" 
text=3D"#000000"><br>The Elsevier=
 study on OA prevalence study was part of broader report. The methods are j=
ust shortly mentioned so its a bit problematic to comment in detail.<br>
The global gold OA share found is 9,7 % of scopus articles, consisting of 5=
,5 % APC paid and 4,2 others (not just 5.5 % as Stevan noted below). The gl=
obal hybrid share is 0.5. The green global share could be assumed to more o=
r less be the sum of preprint versions of 6.4 % and accepted versions 5.0 %=
, adding directly to around 11 %. In particular if their method only took t=
he first found full text copy and then classified it<br>
<br>The big flaw of the study seems to be in the sample used, since it 
cons=
isted of equal numbers of Scopus articles that had been published 2 months,=
 6 months, 12 months and 24 months before the Googling. If the hits are sim=
ple added up for all the sampled articles this means that a major share of =
selfarchivied manuscripts are ignored, due to embargoes or author behavior =
in for instance selfarchiving once a year. For instance half of the copies =
in PMC would not be found in this way. Equally the very low figure for 
&quo=
t;Open Archives&quot;, 1.0 %, could be a result of this method. Our own 
res=
ults for delayed OA are around 5 %.<br>
<br>So all in all the figures are much lower than if one includes 
articles =
made OA with at least a one year delay, which we find is the method we woul=
d recommend for studies claiming to give overall OA uptake figures. Whether=
 this methodological choice was a conscious one from the study team or just=
 an oversight is difficult to know. But if they would have adhered to a str=
ict interpretation that only immediate OA is OA, the sampling should have b=
een different. Now it&#39;s somewhere in between.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Bo-Christer is 
quite right. Elsevier&#39;s=
 arbitrary (and somewhat self-serving) 6-category classification system (ea=
ch of whose categories is curiously labelled a &quot;publishing 
system&quot=
;) leaves much to be desired:</div>
<div><br></div><div><div>1. Gold Open 
Access=A0</div><div>2. Hybrid</div><d=
iv>3. Subsidised</div><div>4. Open 
Archives</div><div>5. Green Open Access:=
 Pre-print versions</div><div>6. Green Open Access: Accepted Author 
Manuscr=
ipt versions</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>It is not just what 
Elsevier called &quot;Gold Op=
en Access&quot; that was Gold Open Access, but also what they called 
&quot;=
Subsidised.&quot; The difference is merely that what they called Gold was 
p=
ublishing-fee-based Gold and what they called subsidized was subsidy-based =
Gold.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>Elsevier also neglected to mention 
that &quot;Subsidise=
d&quot; did not necessarily mean subsidized either: There are also 
subscrip=
tion-based journals that make their online versions free immediately upon p=
ublication; hence they are likewise Gold OA journals.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What Elsevier called &quot;Open 
Archives&quot; is also =
not what it sounds like: It seems to be=A0<i>Delayed 
Access</i>=A0articles,=
 accessible only after a publisher embargo, either on the publisher&#39;s 
w=
ebsite or in another central website, such as PubMed Central, where publish=
ers also deposit, sometimes immediately, sometimes after an 
embargo.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The two Green Open Access 
categories are also ambiguous=
.The pre-print versions are (correctly) described as pre-refereeing drafts =
(but it would take a lot closer analysis to determine whether the pre-print=
s differ from the refereed version. It is easy to determine whether they we=
re posted before the official publication date but far from easy to determi=
ne whether they were posted before refereeing. (The date of the letter of a=
cceptance of the refereed draft is often one that only the author and the e=
ditor know -- though it is in some cases printed in the journal: did Elsevi=
er look at that too?)</div>
<div><br></div><div>The post-refereeing 
author&#39;s drafts are presumably =
what they are described as being, but it is not clear by what criteria Else=
vier distinguished them from pre-refeeeing drafts (except when they were in=
 an institutional repository and specifically tagged as 
unrefereed).</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, as Bo-Christer points out, 
there are many methodolo=
gical questions about the data without whose answers their meaningfulness a=
nd interpretability is limited. I would say that the timing issue is perhap=
s the most important one. And to sort things out I would like to propose a =
different system of classification:</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Open Access 
(OA):</b>=A0The term OA should be reserv=
ed for immediate OA, regardless whether it is provided by the publisher (Go=
ld) or the author (Green). A reasonable error-margin for OA should 
be<i>=A0=
within 3 months or less from publication date</i>. Anything longer begins 
t=
o overlap with publisher embargoes (of 6, 12, 24 months or longer).</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Delayed Access 
(DA):=A0</b>The term DA should be use=
d for delays of more than 6 months. And besides the usefulness of separatel=
y counting 6, 12, and 24 month DA, DA should also be analyzed as a continuo=
us variable, reckoned in months starting from the date of publication (incl=
uding negative delays, when authors post the refereed draft during the inte=
rval from acceptance date to publication date. The unrefereed preprint, how=
ever, should not be mixed into this; it should be treated as a separate poi=
nt of comparison.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So there is=A0<b>Gold 
OA</b>=A0(immediate),=A0<b>Green =
OA</b>=A0(immediate),=A0<b>Gold DA</b>=A0and=A0<b>Green 
DA</b>=A0(measured =
by 6-month intervals as well as continuously in 
months.=A0</div><div><br></=
div><div>If a separate distinction is sought within Gold, then 
fee-based Go=
ld, subsidy-based Gold and subscription-based Gold can be compared, for bot=
h OA and DA. The locus of deposit of the Gold is not relevant, but the fact=
 that it was done by the publisher rather than the author (or the 
author&#3=
9;s assigns) is extremely relevant.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For Green OA and DA it is also 
important to compare loc=
us of deposit (institutional vs. institution-external). See mandates below.=
</div><div><br></div><div>In all cases 
independence and redundancy should u=
niformly be controlled: Whenever a positive &quot;hit&quot; is made in 
any =
category, it has to be checked whether there are any instances of the same =
paper in other categories. Otherwise the data are not mutually exclusive.</=
div>
<div><br></div><div>If desired, all the above can be 
further subdivided in =
terms of=A0<b>Gratis</b>=A0(free online access) 
and=A0<b>Libre</b>=A0(free =
online access plus re-use rights) OA and 
DA.</div><div><br></div><div>Track=
ing Gold has the advantage of having clear unambiguous timing (except if th=
e publication date differs from the date the journal actually appears) and =
of being exhaustively searchable without having to sample or check (if one =
has an index of the Gold OA and DA journals).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Tracking Green is much harder, but 
it must be done, bec=
ause the fight for OA is rapidly becoming the fight against embargoes. That=
&#39;s why Green OA should be reserved for immediate access. It is almost 
c=
ertain that within the next few years most journals will become Gold DA (wi=
th an embargo of 12 months). Hence 12 months is the figure to beat, and Gre=
en DA after 18 months will not be of much use at all.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And the best way to push for 
immediate Green OA, is to =
upgrade all Green mandates to require=A0<i>immediate institutional 
deposit<=
/i>, irrespective of how long an embargo the mandate allows on DA. Requirin=
g immediate deposit does not guarantee immediate OA, but it guarantees imme=
diate Almost-OA, mediated by the repository&#39;s automated copy-request 
Bu=
tton, requiring only one click from the requestor and one click from the au=
thor.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>The immediate-deposit requirement 
plus the Button not o=
nly fits all OA mandates (no matter how they handle embargoes of copyright)=
, making it possible for all institutions and funders to adopt it universal=
ly, but it also delivers the greatest amount of immediate access for 100% o=
f deposits: immediate Green OA for X% plus (100-X)% Button-mediated Almost =
OA. And this, in turn will increase the universal demand for immediacy to t=
he point where publisher embargoes will no longer be able to plug the flood=
-gates and the research community will have the 100% immediate Green OA it =
should have had ever since the creation of the web made it possible by maki=
ng it possible to free the genie from the bottle,</div>
<div>=A0</div><div><b>Stevan 
Harnad</b></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
0.8ex;border-=
left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;p=
adding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" 
text=3D"#000000"><div><br>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 On 12/6/=
13 5:31 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:<br></div><blockquote 
type=3D"cite"><div di=
r=3D"ltr" 
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;text-align:-webkit-auto">Elsevier =
has just conducted and published a study commissioned by UK BIS: 
&quot;<a h=
ref=3D"https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/performance-of-the-uk-res=
earch-base-international-comparison-2013" 
target=3D"_blank">International C=
omparative Performance of the UK Research Base =96 
2013</a>&quot;<br>
<br>This study finds twice as much Green OA (11.6%) as Gold OA (5.9%) in 
th=
e UK (where both<a 
href=3D"http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/10inbrief.htm=
l#HARNAD" target=3D"_blank">Green OA 
repositories</a>=A0and=A0<a href=3D"ht=
tp://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm" 
target=3D"_blank">Green O=
A mandates</a>=A0began) and about equal levels of Green (5.0%) and Gold 
(5.=
5%) in the rest of the world.<br>
<br>There are methodological weaknesses in the Elsevier study, which was 
ba=
sed on SCOPUS data (Gold data are direct and based on the whole data set, G=
reen data are partial and based on hand-sampling; timing is not taken into =
account; categories of OA are often arbitrary and not mutually exclusive, e=
tc). But the overall pattern may have some validity.<br>
<br>What does it mean?<br><br>It means the effects of=A0<a 
href=3D"http://r=
oarmap.eprints.org/view/geoname/geoname=3D5F2=3D5FGB.html" 
target=3D"_blank=
">Green OA mandates in the UK</a>=A0-- where there are relatively 
more of t=
hem, and they have been there for a half decade or more -- are detectable, =
compared to the=A0<a 
href=3D"http://roarmap.eprints.org/view/geoname/" targ=
et=3D"_blank">rest of the world</a>, where mandates are 
relatively fewer.<b=
r>
<br>But 11.6% Green is just a pale, partial indicator of how much OA 
Green =
OA mandates generate: If instead of looking at the world (where about 1% of=
 institutions and funders have OA mandates) or the UK (where the percentage=
 is somewhat higher, but many of the mandates are still weak and ineffectiv=
e ones), one looks specifically at the=A0<a 
href=3D"http://eprints.soton.ac=
.uk/358882/" target=3D"_blank">OA percentages for effectively 
mandated inst=
itutions</a>, the Green figure jumps to over 80% (about half of it 
immediat=
e-OA and half embargoed OA: deposited, and accessible during the embargo vi=
a the repository&#39;s automated copy-request Button, with a click from 
the=
 requestor and a click from the author).<br>
<br>So if the planet&#39;s current level of Green OA is 11.6%, its 
level wi=
ll jump to at least 80% as effective Green OA mandates are 
adopted.<br><br>=
Meanwhile, Gold OA will continue to be unnecessary, over-priced, double-pai=
d (which journal subscriptions still need to be paid) and potentially even =
double-dipped (if paid to the same hybrid subscription/Gold publisher) out =
of scarce research funds contributed by UK tax-payers (&quot;<a 
href=3D"htt=
ps://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=3Dcr&amp;ei=3Db-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=3Dharnad+=
%28fools+OR+fool%27s%29+gold" 
target=3D"_blank">Fool&#39;s Gold</a>&quot;).=
<br>
<br>But once Green OA prevails worldwide,=A0<a 
href=3D"https://www.google.c=
a/?gws_rd=3Dcr&amp;ei=3Db-CUUuTZNM-3kQeAj4CACA#q=3Dharnad+%22fair+gold%22" =
target=3D"_blank">Fair Gold</a>=A0(and all the Libre OA 
re-use rights that =
users need and authors want to provide) will not be far behind.<br>
<br>We are currently gathering data to test whether the=A0<a 
href=3D"https:=
//www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%=
20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;=
tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#c2=
coff=3D1&amp;hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3D%22immediate+deposit%22+blogurl:http=
%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;tbm=3Dblg" target=
=3D"_blank">immediate-deposit</a>=A0(<a 
href=3D"https://www.google.ca/searc=
h?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blog=
url:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dq=
dr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&amp;hl=3Den&=
amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dhefce+immediate+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.o=
rg%2F&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;tbm=3Dblg" 
target=3D"_blank">HEFCE</a>/<a href=
=3D"https://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Ha=
rnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;ie=3D=
UTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=
=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&amp;hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dliege+model++blogurl:htt=
p%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;tbm=3Dblg" target=
=3D"_blank">Liege</a>) Green OA mandate model is indeed the 
most effective =
mandate (compared, for example, with the=A0<a 
href=3D"https://www.google.ca=
/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelis=
m+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;t=
bs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#c2coff=3D1&amp;hl=
=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3DHarvard+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.o=
rg%2F&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;tbas=3D0&amp;tbm=3Dblg" 
target=3D"_blank">Harva=
rd</a>=A0copyright-retention model with opt-out, or the=A0<a 
href=3D"https:=
//www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%=
20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;=
tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#c2=
coff=3D1&amp;hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3DNIH+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenacces=
s.eprints.org%2F&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;tbm=3Dblg" 
target=3D"_blank">NIH</a>=
=A0model with a 12 month embargo).<br>
<br><strong>Stevan Harnad</strong><br><br>P.S. 
Needless to say, the fact th=
at the UK&#39;s Green OA rate is twice as high as its Gold OA rate is true=
=A0<em>despite</em>=A0the new=A0<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/in=
dex.php?/archives/1074-html" target=3D"_blank">Finch/FCUK 
policy</a>=A0whic=
h subsidizes and prefers Gold and tries to downgrade Green -- certainly not=
 because of it!<br>
</div><br 
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;text-align:-webkit-auto"></blockqu=
ote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></=
div></div>

--047d7b66f33f5bd5e904ecf14906--

        
--      
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:  openaccess@soros.org .