The purpose of terminology and definitions is to clarify and simplify their referents.
The BBB description of OA, based on the first B in 2002 <http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read>, was updated in 2008 <http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html> to distinguish Green from Gold OA and Gratis from Libre OA, exactly along the lines described: See also: On "Diamond OA," "Platinum OA," "Titanium OA," and "Overlay-Journal OA," Again <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html> and Paid Gold OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color Cacophony <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html> (2013) And, to repeat: There is no "Platinum" OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms (of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the latter not to be confused with "gratis"]) > After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop > fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it... Stevan Harnad On Aug 19, 2015, at 3:00 AM, MIGUEL ERNESTO NAVAS FERNANDEZ < > miguel.na...@ub.edu> wrote: > Dear all, > I would like to answer to the definitions given by Stevan Harnad: > 1. Green OA means OA provided by the author (usually by self-archiving the > refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository) > 2. Gold OA means OA provided by the journal (often for a publication fee) > 3. Gratis OA means free online access. > 4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights > I agree with the idea that we should use the same official definitions, > but when those a) are not clear, b) look contradictious and c) fail to > represent reality, then we should clarify them a little. > And I think that they are not clear (what does a color name mean?), look > contradictious (OA cannot be only gratis according to BBB definitions) and > c) they fail to represent reality if they do not consider OA-ACP (Platinum > OA) and OA+APC (Commercial OA) as different things. > I will explain myself. > First, I don't agree with statements 3 and 4. According to the last > official OA definition given by at Bethesda ( > http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#definition), "An Open > Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two conditions: > 1) The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, > irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to > copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make > and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible > purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the > right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use. > 2) A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, > including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard > electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at > least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution, > scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established > organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, > interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, > PubMed Central is such a repository). > Reading only 1), Open Access = free access + re-use rights. Free access > only is not OA. Therefore, "gratis OA" would not exist, for it is not OA > yet. In other words, "Gratis OA" should be called free or gratis access, > and "Libre OA" should be called just OA. The use of "gratis" and "libre" is > given by the open software culture, not by OA official definitions. > That said, if a majority of researchers is using "gratis OA" or "libre OA" > (as the mentioned Peter Suber does, for instance), I am not going to fight > them back. I will accept what is used by the majority. But then I don't > understand that belligerence when other terms as Platinum appear. > Second, it is true that Platinum is not "official", but no one can deny > that Gold OA journals published by universities and public research bodies > at no cost for the author are a different thing from Gold OA journals > published by commercial enterprises, including hybrid journals. That > doesn't seem logical for me. It would be as calling full, hybrid and > embargo journals the same OA with no difference among them (if hybrid and > embargo journals are really OA, something that I doubt). You can call it > "OA with APC" vs. "subsidized OA" or something like that, but we need a > name, and Platinum doesn't seem inappropriate for me. Anyone has a better > name? > I don't see a reason for not using a clear name to make them different. > For instance, journals published by Scielo and many LAC universities do not > charge authors at all, while PLoS charges from $1,350 to $2,900, Taylor and > Francis $2,950, Springer €3,000, Elsevier from $500 to $5,000... I don't > want to start a political / ethical discussion here, I just want to state > that these types of OA are different and need a different name. Call it > Platinum OA vs. Commercial OA, call it Author-pays OA v. Subsidized OA, but > call it a name. > Platinum OA (or whatever you may call it) may not be important in Western > publishing cultures, but if we want OA to be universal, the first thing we > need to do is to treat it from a universal point of view. > Thanks a lot. > Best, > Miguel Navas-Fernández > PhD Researcher at Universitat de Barcelona > Member of Acceso Abierto research group > Associate Editor of DOAJ > ORCID Linkedin Twitter > ------------------------------ > >> Date: Mon,14 Aug 2015 13:27:17 -0400 >> From: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> >> 1. Green OA means *OA provided by the author* (usually by self-archiving >> the refereed, revised, accepted final draft in an OA repository) >> 2. Gold OA means OA *provided by the journal* (often for a publication >> fee) >> 3. Gratis OA means free online access. >> 4. Libre OA means Gratis OA plus various re-use rights >> There is no "Platinum" OA. OA is about access, not about funding >> mechanisms >> (of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy >> [the latter not to be confused with "gratis"]) >> After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to >> stop fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it... >> >>> Date: Mon,17 Aug 2015 13:27:17 -0400 >>> From: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> >>> The analogies with the free/open software movement are outweighed by the >>> disanalogies: >>> 1. OA is primarily about journal articles. >>> 2. Journal articles do not consist of executable code but of text. >>> 3. Unlike proprietary software, the *content* of journal articles is, and >>> always was, open. >>> 4. It's just that you have to pay to *access* the content, because access >>> to the proprietary *text* is not free. >>> 5. Nor is the text "open" in the sense of re-publication, re-use, mash-up >>> rights. >>> 6. Gratis OA seeks to make the text free. >>> 7. Libre OA seeks to make the text open. >> >>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
