Thanks for all who have contributed to these recent discussions. I will cease and desist since I do not have the luxury of a job that would allow me the leisure to wade through a thicket of distinctions and counter-distinctions, faqs, prior emailings and counter-emailngs, lemmae, and definitions. I've stated my case in commonsensical terms and will leave it at that and, until such time as I have anything new to say, will let others pick up the discussion if they so choose. Brian Simboli
Quoting Stevan Harnad <[email protected]>: > Prior Amsci Topic Threads: > > "Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ" (Jan 2000) > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0500.html > > "Self-Archiving Refereed Research > vs. Self-Publishing Unrefereed Research" (Aug 2001) > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1468.html > > 'Chronicle of Higher Education > Article on "Self-Publication"' (Nov 2002) > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2375.html > > "Don't Conflate Self-Archiving with Self-Publishing, > or Buy-In with Buy-Back" (Apr 2003) > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2818.html > > "Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing" (Dec 2003) > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3249.html > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Brian Simboli wrote: > > > Responses to Stevan Harnad: > > > > 1. I've so far taken no positions on the merits of central as opposed > > to institutional solutions. Why do you attribute, once again, a view to > > me that I don't hold? Perhaps that explains the need of various people > > to reiterate points. > > My inference was based on your own words: > > (1) Against (green) self-archiving: > > "Why is there this unspoken assumption that green is > any more practicable than, say, the overlay concept?" > > (2) For (green) self-archiving: > > "Also, I am told that arxiv.org has been willing to expand its > subject coverage. Why not use that as a repository for final, > refereed versions articles?" > > Difference between (1) and (2)? (2) is central self-archiving. > > What to conclude (if this is not to be a flat contradiction: > for-green, against-green)? That Brian is for central self-archiving > and against institutional self-archiving. > > Why? Because institutional self-archiving looks as if it might cost > some time and resources for institutional libraries/librarians, whereas > central would offload the cost and time somewhere else. (Just a guess...) > > > 2. I think we're hitting definitional problems here. It depends on how > > you define "green". Stevan takes it to be tied crucially to author's > > depositing their output somewhere, ***including (or especially?) cases > > where that output has already been published by toll access > > publishers***. > > Not wanting to make any quixotic custodial claims on the English tongue, > I would nevertheless suggest that as I coined the color-terms, I might > have some clue as to what they refer to! There are two ways to provide > Open Access (OA) to peer-reviewed journal articles (which is the target > literature for the Budapest Open Access Initiative [BOAI], which > coined the basic term "Open Access" itself): > > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml > > BOAI-1 is defined by BOAI as providing open online access to an article > by publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal and also self-archiving it so > as to make it accessible to all would-be users webwide toll-free. (The > self-archiving is preferably in an OAI-compliant OA archive, whether an > institutional/departmental/personal OAI archive or a central/disciplinary > OAI archive) > > BOAI-2 is defined by BOAI as providing open online access to an article > by publishing it in an Open Access (OA) journal that makes it accessible > to all would-be users webwide toll-free. (The access is preferably in > an OAI-compliant OA Archive.) > > I simply coined the terms "green" and "golden" roads to OA for BOAI-1 > and BOAI-2 respectively, with the "gold" journals being the OA journals > that provide OA directly, and the "green" journals being the journals > that give their authors the "green light" to go ahead and self-archive. > > According to the sample to date, about 5% of the world's 24,000 > peer-reviewed journals are gold: > > http://www.doaj.org/ > > According to the sample to date, about 92% of the world's 24,000 > peer-reviewed journals are green: > > http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php > > > My point is that this practice of double-publishing > > promotes a system beholden to the commercials for their largesse, > > something that in the recent discussions he has not really addressed. > > This is not a practice of "double-publishing": > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.4 > > 'Garfield: "Acknowledged Self-Archiving is Not Prior Publication"' > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2239.html > > The articles are published in a journal. The self-archived version is > provided so that those would-be users who cannot afford the toll-access > version can still access and use the article. > > On the subject of "largesse" I invite Brian, for the 3rd time, to have a > look > at: > > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#32.Poisoned > > > What of the "pull the plug" argument? (i.e.., the commercials can at any > > point overturn their extension of green self-archiving "rights"). > > I invite Brian, for the 4th time, to look at: > > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#32.Poisoned > > (I only refrain from reproducing the text in full here because others have > already seen it reproduced in full.) > > > I'm all for OA preprint archiving, for those disciplines that rely upon > > them. > > But the BOAI, and OA, are primarily about providing OA to the > peer-reviewed article, not the unrefereed preprint. And I challenge Brian > to name any discipline that will *not* be better off if no would-be user > is denied access to any article because his institution cannot afford > the access tolls. (Please don't reply about ILL [interlibrary loan], > because that's just another form of toll-access, not to mention that it > is not available for full-text online browsing and searching in advance.) > > > The fact remains that most disciplines rely on publishing in > > toll-access, peer reviewed venues. To think that double-publishing that > > material is going to handle the infrastructural problems of > > affordability, preservation, etc is, I think, quixotic, at least for the > > foreseeable future. > > It is not double-publishing, it is self-archiving the published article to > provide OA to it. And it is not provided for the sake of affordability, > preservation, etc., but for the sake of access and impact. > > (Universities' and research funders' existing mandate to publish-or-perish > does not refer to vanity self-publishing, it refers to peer-reviewed > journal publication. The mandate may well be extended to self-archiving > the publication too, but not as a substitute for publication, but as > a supplement to it, for the sake of maximizing access and impact. For > academic research, CV and promotion purposes, "publish" means "publish > in a peer-reviewed journal" [at least for articles, if not books].) > > >sh> 3. "overlay journals have nothing in principle to do with OA". > > > > I have in mind by overlay journals, a vague term I admit, the following. > > You may want to disagree with my definition, in which case we can find > > another term. Shall we call it the "x-journal"? > > > > a. institutionally funded editorial processes resulting in deposit of > > refereed materials in an established institutional or central archive or > > archives, where the traditional model of peer-review is full retained, > > and where the access is toll access. [Institutional is ambiguous--I can > > see a variety of institutions supporting one central archive]. > > I'm afraid I could not follow this: Who administers the refereeing > and certifies its outcome? Let us call that a "journal." There are already > 24,000 of those , refereeing and publishing 2,5 million articles per year. > > What does "institutionally funded editorial processes" mean? An > institution paying the peer-review costs for its author's articles? That's > called BOAI-2 (gold). An institution doing its own peer-review? That's > called vanity publishing. > > And if all of this is toll-access, I'm not sure why are we discussing it > here > at all, in a forum dedicated to open access! > > > or > > b." ", where the access is open access. > > You mean an OA (gold) journal, again? > > > Option (b) holds a great deal of promise for facilitating OA of > > traditionally peer-reviewed materials, which is what researchers want in > > most disciplines. It is in this sense that overlay journals have a whole > > lot to do with OA. Option (a), if prices are kept low, also promotes > > access, though not open access. Why? More institutions can buy journals. > > As already discussed at length in my prior reply, the online medium offers > many ways to make peer review faster, more efficient, and more economical. > But that has nothing to do with OA either. > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/peerev.ppt > > > 4. What is option (b) any more hypothetical than the quixotic goal of > > 100 per cent green self-archiving of already published material? > > Unfortunately I am now lost completely. Brian is speculating about > alternative systems that I have trouble even verbalizing in such a way > as to make them make sense -- except if all they mean is cheaper and > more efficient online peer-review and/or OA (gold) journal publication > -- in which case there is nothing new or relevant to discuss here. > > > 5. Self-archiving involves "no dollars"? Perhaps for researchers. I > > speak from a librarian's perspective, however. > > This may be a very important point, not considered before. If librarians > are reluctant (quite understandably and justifiably) to support > self-archiving with their time and resources it might be best to assign > the all-important institutional self-archiving function somewhere > else. Librarians, after all, are not traditionally interested in, > responsible for or beneficiaries of institutional research impact. (Their > only involvement with research impact is in connection with journal > impact factors, in making acquisition/cancellation decisions.) > > So rather than having the self-archiving function automatically assigned > to the library by default, only to have it rejected or minimized in > an understandable desire to protect library budgets, it may be better > to assign it elsewhere -- perhaps to computer services, perhaps devolved > departmentally (something OAI-interoperability and modularity makes > easy to do), perhaps somewhere else; it's not a big expense in any > case. No need to saddle librarians with a nontraditional function > that they would rather not perform -- especially if it keeps getting > confused with other, traditional library functions (such as acquisition, > preservation, cataloguing, permissions) with which it does not fit, > and from which only the wrong conclusions can be drawn. > > > But good luck in getting the majority, or even a small minority, of > > researchers on board with your strategy. > > The biggest help will of course be the self-archiving mandate that some > institutions are already implementing, and that the UK and US and other > nations may soon be introducing at the national level. > > http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php > > > So too librarians, who find your condescension toward them demeaning. > > I am sorry if it sounds like condescension; it is just an attempt to > put in words what increasingly looks like an attempt to put a round peg > in a square hole. Librarians were among the historic heroes of the OA > movement for having rallied us to the access problem as a spin-off of > the affordability problem. But having alerted us all to the problem, > it simply seems to be transpiring that the solution may lie elsewhere. > > Stevan Harnad > > AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM: > A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing > open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004) > is available at: > http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html > To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address: > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access- Forum.html > Post discussion to: > [email protected] > > UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional > policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output, > please describe your policy at: > http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php > > UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY: > BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access > journal whenever one exists. > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals > BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable > toll-access journal and also self-archive it. > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
