Le dimanche 20 janvier 2013 à 16:52 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > > 1. Mandatory Green OA self-archiving in Stevan's meaning is fine > > for the disciplines to which it applies; > > It applies to (the refereed journal articles of) *all* disciplines: No > exceptions.
Indeed, but in a number of disciplines, articles are second-rate publications. So this amounts to excluding such disciplines by making Green OA of little relevance he specialists working in these disciplines. [snip] > > Paying for Gold without first mandating Green is always not-fine. Some forms of Gold do not require any more payment than what is needed to maintain a repository. In fact, an OA Gold journal is a repository of its own articles. The costs of an OA journal, especially when using tools such as the Open Journal System are in the same ball park as repositories. So Gold can be achieved with as much financial effort as Green. In fact, a repository could and ought to host local journals. Repositories and journals managed in the same institution could easily work together. [snip] > > > 3. Pursuing OA with tactics that amount to leaving most HSS disciplines > > aside is not acceptable, even when presented as a first step. > > Green OA self-archiving of all journal articles first needs to be mandated, > by all institutions and funders, in all disciplines (ID/OA). OK. This is clear. This is precisely the point where we disagree. You insist on a rigidly defined first step; I argue in favour of your first step, or other first steps, depending on situations, circumstances and opportunities. [snip] > > > 4. Books can be self-archived, even if it be limited to a dark archive. > > Definitely! Books can be deposited in institutional repositories as > Closed Access deposits. Good. > > > The same issue exists with articles when publishers refuse self-archiving, > > or require a long embargo. > > The crucial and consequential differences being that: > > (1) all article authors (but not all book authors -- perhaps even far from > all book authors) > will want to use the repository's reprint-request Button to provide a free > copy to all > individual requesters. True if the repository does not provide the author with a private digital copy of his/her own book. But this should not be too difficult to achieve. Otherwise, authors of scholarly books will want maximum visibility, just like article authors. > > and > > (2) all article authors (but not all book authors -- perhaps even far from > all book authors) > will want the OA embargo to be none, or as short as possible. That I do not understand. Except for the rare monographs where economic rewards are real, removing the embargo would be beneficial to the authors, as is the case for the articles. Books are pulped by publishers rather quickly after publication, because storage is expensive. Authors know this, and they know that this procedure essentially kills their book. OA would solve this problem for both sides, and this is one of the arguments that OAPEN usedin favour of its programme. Jean-Claude Guédon > > Stevan Harnad > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
