[Posting by T. Andrew, followed by reply by S. Harnad] Stevan
Whilst we are discussing the pros and cons of colour schemes we are missing the point of what the SHERPA/Romeo list is all about. For me it is primarily to provide a *single* point of access where I can check publishers policies on self-archiving. I agree with you that a simple colour scheme (i.e just green) is more intuitive, however colours are not THAT important. Whilst engaging with academics in my day to day self-archiving advocacy at Edinburgh University, people want to know what the policies actually are rather than a colour. To be honest, most people do not care/know about the colour scheme. It actually means nothing to them. Stevan- you have a well respected and privelidged position. People listen, and act upon, what you say. Please be careful with what you are doing here in trying to get your point across (even if it is legitimate). By creating/enhancing the RoMEO list you have in effect created a alternate (rival!?!) list that people will turn to. The lists are already not *exactly* equivalent (Check for Institute of Mathematical Statistics- in SHERPA, but not SOTONs). It's differences like these that will grow and cause confusion in our camp. We need to have a unified voice in all this and the longer we disagree the more damage we are doing. Remember - we are on the same side! Kind regards Theo Dr. Theo Andrew * Tel: 0131 651 1612 Theses Alive! & SHERPA * Fax: 0131 650 3380 Edinburgh University * Main Library * http://www.thesesalive.ac.uk Edinburgh EH8 9LJ * http://www.sherpa.ac.uk ------------------------- Reply from Stevan Harnad: > Whilst we are discussing the pros and cons of colour schemes we are > missing the point of what the SHERPA/Romeo list is all about. For me > it is primarily to provide a *single* point of access where I can check > publishers' policies on self-archiving. Theo, I agree entirely. There should be a *single* point of access for the SHERPA/Romeo list, and that point of access should be SHERPA. The reason I created the alternative version at http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Romeo/romeo.html was *not* because I want to provide a rival version: It was to illustrate visually what I had already been recommending verbally to SHERPA for months -- in fact, since before the new SHERPA/Romeo list was created. See the thread starting: "SHERPA will take over the Romeo Publisher Policy Table" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3100.html (By the way, the primary purpose of the SHERPA/Romeo list is definitely *not* so that permissions-librarians can check publishers' policies on self-archiving, although that is one of its secondary purposes. The primary purpose is so that authors can check their journals' policies on self-achiving. It is authors who self-archive, and who need to be encouraged to do so [e.g., by their journal's green light]. Perhaps this unstated pespectival difference on the list's primary purpose is at the root of some of the talking-past one another!) > I agree with you that a simple colour scheme (i.e just green) is more > intuitive, however, colours are not THAT important. If the green-only is more intuitive, then why doesn't SHERPA/Romeo just *adopt* it? I do not understand why SHERPA keeps citing the old Romeo list (which we were still busy actively optimising at the time the Romeo project ended) as a precedent for retaining the old-Romeo colours, as if those colours had been etched in stone (and perma-ink) and had already become canonical (while at the same time adding further unnecessary and unintuitive colours that were not even among the superfluous ones already in the old-Romeo canon!). Why not just fix it? Then it will be my version that becomes superfluous, and I can happily remove it with all alacrity! > Whilst engaging with academics in my day to day self-archiving advocacy > at Edinburgh University, people want to know what the policies actually > are rather than a colour. To be honest, most people do not care/know > about the colour scheme. It actually means nothing to them. As I have replied repeatedly, the specific policy information is all there, in the individual entries, in *both* versions. So those who want to know the policies (on preprints and on postprints) have everything they want and need, in *both* versions. This is a non-sequitur as a functional reason for retaining the superfluous colour scheme! The purpose of the colours is for the summary statistics http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Romeo/romeosum.html so as to be able to display and track the number and percentage of publishers (and journals) that have given the green light to self-archiving *at all*. Those are the "green" publishers (journals). (The preprint/postprint subsets of green then just become, perfectly intuitively, pale-green and bright-green.) There is no need whatsoever for green publishers, blue publishers, yellow publishers, and white publishers. Nor is there any need for red crosses, nor for the (polysemous and somewhat inconsistent) green ticks. Green alone says it all (with two shades for the preprint/postprint distinction where needed). But there *is* a need for listing journals, as well as publishers. Lose the 3 unnecessary and unintuitive colours (blue, yellow, red), add the necessary and informative journals, and you eradicate all need for a second version of Romeo (and our group can go back to doing only what we had proposed to do, which was to provide comparative statistics for OA growth integrating the summary statistics from Romeo, DOAJ and OAIster): "DOAJ, OAIster and Romeo should chart growth, as EPrints does" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3495.html > Stevan- you have a well respected and privileged position. People listen, > and act upon, what you say. Please be careful with what you are doing > here in trying to get your point across (even if it is legitimate). I am making recommendations -- verbal and visual -- for improving the functionality of the SHERPA/Romeo list. I have no wish to create a rival version of Romeo. It would be ever so helpful if SHERPA itself were to "listen, and to act upon" these functional recommendations. It does not seem to be very helpful -- by way of a response to legitimate functional recommendations -- merely to cite precedent, or the irrelevance of the colour code, as grounds for retaining a dysfunctional colour code. It would seem to be more helpful either to repair the colour code and wording and add the journals, as recommended, or to give *functional* reasons why that would either not be better, or not be possible. (The "rival" model seems, at the very least, to have demonstrated that it is not impossible!) > By creating/enhancing the RoMEO list you have in effect created an > alternate (rival!?!) list that people will turn to. The lists are already > not *exactly* equivalent (Check for Institute of Mathematical Statistics- > in SHERPA, but not SOTONs). It's differences like these that will grow > and cause confusion in our camp. SHERPA have kindly allowed Soton to get its data directly from SHERPA, so if the Soton version has to be maintained, it will be kept in phase. But it was in fact not intended as a rival version. It was just intended as a visual model, to supplement the prior verbal recommendations, for upgrades that we hope will be incorporated into SHERPA's otherwise excellent version. > We need to have a unified voice in all this and the longer we disagree > the more damage we are doing. Remember - we are on the same side! I agree completely. But we do not have a unified voice as long a deaf ear is turned to recommendations for improving functionality. Functionality needs to be our joint concern. Best wishes, Stevan Harnad
