A Platinum OA journal is, to my mind, an OA journal which is completely BOAI-compliant (CC:BY, content mining, e.g.) but where the cost of the journal is not covered by APCs but by other sources like research institution, academic societies, funders e.g. But that is not Green OA!
The problem with that distinction is that models seem to arise which are between Gold and Platinum: partly covered by institutional funding and partly covered by some financial contribution from the authors (submission fees, OA subscriptions, e.g.) However, in the end, it is mostly tax payers money, either directly transfered by the institution (university, funder) to the journal or tranfered by the the institution (university, funder) to the authors and then to the journal ... Best, Falk __________________________________________________ Falk Reckling, PhD Social Science and Humanities / Strategic Analysis / Open Access Head of Units Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Sensengasse 1 A-1090 Vienna email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at<mailto:falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at> Tel.: +43-1-5056740-8301 Mobil: + 43-699-19010147 Web: http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/contact/personen/reckling_falk.html ________________________________ Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]" im Auftrag von "Peter Murray-Rust [pm...@cam.ac.uk] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Juli 2012 15:26 An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Beall, Jeffrey <jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu<mailto:jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu>> wrote: I make the distinction between gold open-access and platinum open-access. Author fees + free to reader = gold open access No author fees + free to reader = platinum open access This discussion, I think, demonstrates that this distinction is significant and worthy of a separate appellation. I assume that "free" means "as in speech" (Stallman) and effectively BOAI-compliant, otherwise it overlaps significantly with Green. If so and if we are forced to use semantic-free labels such as G and G, I support this in general. But the terminology and permissions must be clear, else we end up with Wiley's "fully open" which allows almost zero re-use other than eyeballs. OTOH it would be much clearer if we actually used a labelling system which clearly denoted permissions, availability, cost, price, etc. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
