Yes, here are some: http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=553&It emid=378
Wolters Kluwer bought Medknow a couple of years ago but has (so far) retained its subscription-plus-immediate-free-access model: http://www.medknow.com/journals.asp Alma Swan On 19/04/2013 06:52, "Jan Velterop" <velte...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are there examples of such "subscription journals that make their online > version freely accessible online (immediately upon publication)." > > Who would subscribe, and what would a subscription entail? > > Jan Velterop > > On 19 Apr 2013, at 05:16, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon >> <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: >> >>> The reference to free Gold journals covered by subscriptions is not clear to >>> me. Is this a reference to SCOAP3? >> >> It's a reference to all subscription journals that make their online version >> freely accessible online (immediately upon publication). >> >> (No, SCOAP3 is a premature and unnecessary post-hoc consortial "membership" >> scheme that I think will not prove sustainable. The HEP fields have already >> provided near 100% (Green) OA for 20 years, un-mandated. What's needed next >> is for institutions and funders to mandate that all other disciplines do >> likewise.) >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >>> Le jeudi 18 avril 2013 à 07:45 +0100, Stevan Harnad a écrit : >>>> 1. The Green/Gold Open Access (OA) distinction concerns whether it is the >>>> author or the publisher that provides the OA. >>>> 2. This distinction was important to mark with clear terms because the >>>> conflation of the two roads to OA has practical implications and has been >>>> holding up OA progress for a decade and a half. >>>> 3. The distinction between paid Gold and free Gold is very far from being >>>> a straightforward one. >>>> 4. Free Gold can be free (to the author) because the expenses of the Gold >>>> journal are covered by subscriptions, subsidies or volunteerism. >>>> 5. The funds for Paid Gold can come from the author's pocket, the author's >>>> research grant, the author's institution or the author's funder. >>>> 6. It would be both absurd and gratuitously confusing to mark each of >>>> these economic-model differences with a color-code. >>>> 7. Superfluous extra colors would also obscure the role that the >>>> colour-code was invented to perform: distinguishing author-side OA >>>> provision from publisher-side OA provision. >>>> 8. So, please, let's not have "diamond," "platinum" and "titanium" OA >>>> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html> , despite the >>>> metallurgical temptations. >>>> 9. They amplify noise instead of pinpointing the signal, just as >>>> SHERPA/Romeo >>>> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/453-SHERPARoMEO-Publishe >>>> rs-with-Paid-Options-for-Open-Access.html> 's parti-colored >>>> Blue/Yellow/Green spectrum <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeoinfo.html#colours> >>>> (mercifully ignored by almost everyone) does. >>>> 10. OA is about providing Open Access to peer-reviewed journal articles, >>>> not about cost-recovery models for OA publishing (Gold OA). >>>> 11. The Gold that publishers are fighting for and that researcher funders >>>> are subsidizing (whether "pure" or "hybrid") is paid Gold, not free Gold. >>>> 12. No one knows whether or how free Gold will be sustainable, any more >>>> than they know whether or how long subscription publishing can co-exist >>>> viably with mandatory Green OA. >>>> 13. So please leave the economic ideology and speculation out of the >>>> pragmatics of OA policy making by the research community (institutions and >>>> funders). >>>> 14. Cost-recovery models are the province of publishers (Gold OA). >>>> 15. What the research community needs to do is mandate OA provision. >>>> 16. The only OA provision that is entirely in the research community's >>>> hands is Green OA. >>>> And, before you ask, please let's not play into the publishers' hands by >>>> colour-coding OA also in terms of the length of the publisher embargo: >>>> 3-month OA, 6-month OA, 12-month-OA, 24-month-OA, millennial OA: OA means >>>> immediate online access. Anything else is delayed access. (The only >>>> quasi-exception is the "Almost-OA >>>> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/839-Publisher-OA-Embargo >>>> es,-IDOA-Mandates-and-the-Almost-OA-Button.html> " provided by the author >>>> via the institutional repository's email-eprint-request Button when >>>> complying with publisher embargoes -- but that too is clearly not OA, which >>>> is immediate, free online access.) >>>> And on no account should the genuine, substantive distinction between >>>> Gratis OA <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html> >>>> (free online access) and Libre OA >>>> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/442-guid.html> (free >>>> online access plus various re-use rights) be color-coded (with a different >>>> shade for every variety of CC license)! >>>> Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y, >>>> Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact >>>> Problem and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access >>>> <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10209/> . Serials Review 30. Shorter >>>> version: The green and the gold roads to Open Access >>>> <http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html> . Nature Web >>>> Focus. >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
