Dana Roth asked:
Â
Stevan: would it be helpful to have a 'hall of shame' where titles
of journals that do not allow self-archiving are 'outed'??
Dana,
(1) I agree completely with Peter Millington (below), that SHERPA/Romeo already
implicitly contains the "hall of shame" (consisting of those journals/publishers
who do not endorse unembargoed OA self-archiving at all) and that there is hence
no reason to generate another one (especially since there are so many
journals/publishers in it). The simple, self-explanatory color code for the
shame category is non-green.
(2) I also agree that there should be a special category for journals/publishers
who endorse the unembargoed OA self-archiving of the unrefereed preprint, even
though they do not endorse the unembargoed OA self-archiving of the refereed
final draft. The simple, self-explanatory color-code for the preprint-only
category should be pale-green.
(3) I don't think it's very useful, strategically, however, to give a lot of
attention one way or the other to publishers that embargo OA. That information
should be noted, of course, but those journals/publishers should not get further
credit than that, over the publishers who do not endorse OA self-archiving at
all. All journals/publishers that embargo OA should be color-coded as non-green.
(4) Still less useful (and even downright counterproductive), I think, is a
color-coded distinction between journals/publishers that endorse the unembargoed
OA self-archiving of the refereed draft and journals/publishers that endorse
the
unembargoed OA self-archiving of both the refereed draft and the unrefereed
preprint. Both these categories should be color-coded as fully green (not as
blue and green, respectively, as now).Â
In other words, the only categories that matter are unembargoed OA
self-archiving of the refereed final draft (full-green), unembargoed OA
self-archiving of the unrefereed preprint only (pale-green), and neither
(non-green).
The colors blue and yellow are just obscuring the understanding of green OA.
There is no blue OA and there is no yellow OA.Â
Stevan Harnad
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Peter Millington
<peter.milling...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
Dana
Be careful what you ask for. A list of the ~5% of journals that do
not allow any form of open access archiving whatsoever would contain
getting on for 1,000 titles. I think that a list of such a size
would lose its impact.
Please note that SHERPA/RoMEO is conservative when assigning
colours. An "unclear" permission is treated as a "cannot".
Consequently that 5% of journals is a blend of titles where
archiving is definitely verboten - "deep white" if you will - and
titles where the situation is unclear - "off white". When RoMEO
eventually manages to get definitive information from the "off
white" publishers, their colours might well change, and that could
go either way.
Slightly more than half of the 5% are "deep white", which yields a
"Hall of shame" of about 500 titles - still quite large. A better
approach might be to list the publishers of the "white" journals.
This would list about 200 publishers, of which about 130 have "deep
white" titles.
RoMEO's main concern is to ensure that the policy information in its
database is accurate and complete - whether a publisher supports
open access or opposes it. A "hall of shame" would probably have no
effect on the publishers who are "deep white", but under a different
title it might encourage the "off white" publishers to provide us
with the clarification we require. Indeed there are many publishers
that we have not been able to add to RoMEO due to the unavailability
of policy information. However, we are soon going to be moving some
of the unclear policies from our suggestions list into RoMEO,
flagged as "provisional", in the hope that this may encourage the
relevant publishers to answer our requests for information.
Peter Millington
SHERPA Services
Centre for Research Communication
University of Nottingham
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On
Behalf Of Dana Roth
Sent: 25 November 2011 04:48
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed
Articles - but it gets much much better...
Stevan: would it be helpful to have a 'hall of shame' where titles of
journals that do not allow self-archiving are 'outed'??
Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423Â fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm
________________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] on behalf of
Peter Millington [peter.milling...@nottingham.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 3:59 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed   Â
    Articles - but it gets much much better...
*** Apologies for cross posting ***
New charts published on the SHERPA/RoMEO Blog show that 87% of journals
allow some form of immediate self-archiving of articles, although in only
60% of cases is this a post-peer-reviewed version.
http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/?p=196
This rises impressively once embargo periods have expired and any other
restrictions have been complied with, showing that 94% of journals permit
peer-reviewed articles to be archived. Furthermore, nearly a quarter of
journals allow the publisher's version/PDF to be archived. Only 5% of
journals do not permit any form of archiving.
The statistics were compiled from a snapshot of the RoMEO Journals
database taken on the 15th Nov.2011, when it contained about 19,000
titles.
Peter Millington
SHERPA Technical Development Officer
Centre for Research Communications
Greenfield Medical Library, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical
Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, England
This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and
may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in
error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Â Please do
not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in
any attachment. Â Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this
email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of
Nottingham.
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
