[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Like Stevan Harnad, I say: enough with colours!

The important thing to remember is that gold OA is not, repeat *NOT*
limited to author-pay schemes. There are indeed many journals that are
gratis to authors and libre to readers (e.g. SciELO and RedALyC journals
in latin America and beyond). To my mind, this is the optimal version of
Gold.

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le jeudi 26 juillet 2012 à 06:16 -0600, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit :

> 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. 
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Associate Professor
> Auraria Library
> University of Colorado Denver
> 1100 Lawrence St.
> Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
> (303) 556-5936
> jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> Reckling, Falk, Dr.
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:53 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash 
> for open access
> 
> 
> I think there is still a misunderstanding with Gold OA. Running a OA journal 
> does not necesserily mean to charges article fees!
> 
> Take Economics as an example: meanwhile there are some good OA journals, most 
> of them are new but with very prominent advisory boards (which is a good 
> predictor of being successful in the long run)
> 
> a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
> http://www.economics-ejournal.org/
> 
> b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): http://econtheory.org/
> 
> c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding):
> http://journals.iza.org/
> 
> d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now 
> society based funding):
> http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php
> 
> All of them are without APCs, and that model also works in many other fields. 
> 
> What is needed is a very good editorial board and a basic funding by an 
> institution/society, or by a consortium of institutions or by a charity or ...
> 
> Or why not considering a megajournal in the Humanities and apply a clever 
> business model as PEERJ tries it right now in the Life Science?: 
> http://peerj.com/ 
> 
> In the end, it is up to the community to develop models which fit their needs 
> ...
> 
> Best Falk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 26.07.2012 um 12:09 schrieb "l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk" :
> 
> > The question isn't whether they're free or not, but whether they play 
> > major roles as venues and outlets for important Humanities 
> > scholarship.  And also it's still the case that traditional print 
> > journals involve long print cues and delays in publication.  And also 
> > it's the case that university libraries paying ridiculous subscription 
> > charges for journals in the Sciences have less funding for monographs 
> > (still the gold standard in Humanities), and even put pressure on 
> > Humanities to cut their journals.
> > Finally, there is the concern that the current move to "gold OA" with 
> > pages charges, etc., will adversely affect Humanities scholars.
> > So, please, no snap and simple replies.  Let's engage the problems.
> > Larry Hurtado
> > 
> > Quoting Jan Szczepanski  on Wed, 25 Jul
> > 2012 22:53:06 +0200:
> > 
> >> Is more than sixteen thousand free e-journals in the humanities and 
> >> social sciences of any importance in this discussion?
> >> 
> >> http://www.scribd.com/Jan%20Szczepanski
> >> 
> >> Jan
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 2012/7/25  :
> >>> Webster concisely articulates the concerns that I briefly mooted a 
> >>> few days ago.
> >>> Larry Hurtado
> >>> 
> >>> Quoting Omega Alpha Open Access  on Wed, 25 
> >>> Jul 2012 11:03:30 -0400:
> >>> 
>  Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open 
>  access http://wp.me/p20y83-no
>  
>  Nice article this morning by Peter Webster on the Research 
>  Fortnight website entitled "Humanities left behind in the dash for 
>  open access."
>    =rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1214091> Check it out.
>  
>  Webster observes that much of the current conversation around the 
>  growth of open access focuses on the sciences and use of an 
>  "author-pays" business model. He feels inadequate attention in the 
>  conversation has been given to the unique needs of humanities 
>  scholarship, and why it may be harder for humanist scholars to 
>  embrace open access based on the "author-pays" model.
>  
>  "There is no Public Library of History to match the phenomenally 
>  successful Public Library of Science."
>  .
>  
>  Your comments are welcome.
>  
>  Gary F. Daught
>  Omega Alpha | Op

[GOAL] Richard Poynder Interviews Stevan Harnad on RCUK OA Policy

[Stevan Harnad]

*** Cross-Posted ***

Thursday, July 26, 2012
OA advocate Stevan Harnad withdraws support for RCUK
policy

*RICHARD POYNDER:*
*When on July 16th Research Councils UK
(**RCUK*
*) published its updated **Policy on Access to Research
Outputs*
* the Open Access (**OA* *)
movement greeted the news with enthusiasm. This was hardly surprising:
unlike the recommendations in the controversial **Finch
Report*
* (published a month earlier), RCUK stressed that it continues to view both
**gold OA* * publishing
and **green OA* * self-archiving
as equal partners in any OA policy.*
*
*
*Gold and green are the two strategies outlined eight years ago when the OA
movement was **born* *, and are
viewed as being essential components of any successful transition to OA.*
**

*By contrast, Finch concluded that the main vehicle should now be gold OA,
either via pure open access journals or via**hybrid
journals*
*, and that this should be funded by article processing charges
(**APCs*
*).*

*At the same time, Finch argued, it was time to downgrade green OA, and
reduce the role of institutional
repositories to
merely, "providing access to research data and to grey literature" and
assisting in digital preservation. *

*Set alongside the Finch proposals, OA advocates quickly concluded that
RCUK’s policy was a godsend.*

*One of the first to applaud the new policy was long-standing OA advocate,
and self-styled **archivangelist* *, **Stevan
Harnad* *. The minute the report
was published a relieved Harnad began flooding mailing lists with messages
congratulating RCUK on coming up with a policy that not only defied Finch,
but was stronger than its current OA policy. *

*But as Harnad set about talking up the policy, and seeking to win over
sceptics and doubters, he himself began to have doubts. And eventually he
was driven to the conclusion that he had no option but to withdraw his
support for the RCUK policy — which he now characterises as “autistic”, and
a “foolish, wasteful and counterproductive step backwards”.*

*How has what at first sight seemed so desirable rapidly become something
terrible? Curious to find out, I contacted Harnad. I publish the email
interview that emerged from our conversation
HERE
*
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2012-07-26, at 8:16 AM, Beall, Jeffrey 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

OA comes in two degrees:

Gratis OA is free online access.

Libre OA is free online access plus various re-use rights

OA can be provided via Gold OA publishing or via Green OA
self-archiving.

Gold OA publishing is defined as free to the reader. 

Some Gold OA journals charge and author fee, some don't. 

Some are pure Gold OA, some are hybrid.

We don't need a new color for every variant.

Stevan Harnad



And OA comes in two degrees:
> 
> This discussion, I think, demonstrates that this distinction is significant 
> and worthy of a separate appellation. 
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Associate Professor
> Auraria Library
> University of Colorado Denver
> 1100 Lawrence St.
> Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
> (303) 556-5936
> jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> Reckling, Falk, Dr.
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:53 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash 
> for open access
> 
> 
> I think there is still a misunderstanding with Gold OA. Running a OA journal 
> does not necesserily mean to charges article fees!
> 
> Take Economics as an example: meanwhile there are some good OA journals, most 
> of them are new but with very prominent advisory boards (which is a good 
> predictor of being successful in the long run)
> 
> a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
> http://www.economics-ejournal.org/
> 
> b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): http://econtheory.org/
> 
> c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding):
> http://journals.iza.org/
> 
> d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now 
> society based funding):
> http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php
> 
> All of them are without APCs, and that model also works in many other fields. 
> 
> What is needed is a very good editorial board and a basic funding by an 
> institution/society, or by a consortium of institutions or by a charity or ...
> 
> Or why not considering a megajournal in the Humanities and apply a clever 
> business model as PEERJ tries it right now in the Life Science?: 
> http://peerj.com/ 
> 
> In the end, it is up to the community to develop models which fit their needs 
> ...
> 
> Best Falk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 26.07.2012 um 12:09 schrieb "l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk" :
> 
>> The question isn't whether they're free or not, but whether they play 
>> major roles as venues and outlets for important Humanities 
>> scholarship.  And also it's still the case that traditional print 
>> journals involve long print cues and delays in publication.  And also 
>> it's the case that university libraries paying ridiculous subscription 
>> charges for journals in the Sciences have less funding for monographs 
>> (still the gold standard in Humanities), and even put pressure on 
>> Humanities to cut their journals.
>> Finally, there is the concern that the current move to "gold OA" with 
>> pages charges, etc., will adversely affect Humanities scholars.
>> So, please, no snap and simple replies.  Let's engage the problems.
>> Larry Hurtado
>> 
>> Quoting Jan Szczepanski  on Wed, 25 Jul
>> 2012 22:53:06 +0200:
>> 
>>> Is more than sixteen thousand free e-journals in the humanities and 
>>> social sciences of any importance in this discussion?
>>> 
>>> http://www.scribd.com/Jan%20Szczepanski
>>> 
>>> Jan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2012/7/25  :
 Webster concisely articulates the concerns that I briefly mooted a 
 few days ago.
 Larry Hurtado
 
 Quoting Omega Alpha Open Access  on Wed, 25 
 Jul 2012 11:03:30 -0400:
 
> Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open 
> access http://wp.me/p20y83-no
> 
> Nice article this morning by Peter Webster on the Research 
> Fortnight website entitled "Humanities left behind in the dash for 
> open access."
>  =rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1214091> Check it out.
> 
> Webster observes that much of the current conversation around the 
> growth of open access focuses on the sciences and use of an 
> "author-pays" business model. He feels inadequate attention in the 
> conversation has been given to the unique needs of humanities 
> scholarship, and why it may be harder for humanist scholars to 
> embrace open access based on the "author-pays" model.
> 
> "There is no Public Library of History to match the phenomenally 
> successful Public Library of Science."
> .
> 
> Your comments are welcome.
> 
> Gary F. Daught
> Omega Alp

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Beall, Jeffrey
wrote:

> I think platinum open-access involves publishers and their journals or
> very often single journals, but green open-access is essentially
> self-archiving, including self-archiving of previously published stuff,
> usually in an institutional or disciplinary repository.
>
> Here's an example of what I would call a platinum open-access journal:
>
> Journal of Library Innovation = http://www.libraryinnovation.org/
>
> This is NOT BOAI-compliant. From their site:

Copyright Notice

The Journal of Library Innovation is an open access journal. Authors retain
the copyright to their work under the terms of the following Creative
Commons license: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 (United
States) 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/.

All authors will be required to sign a License to Publish prior to
publication.
NC is not BOAI-compliant
ND is not-BOAI-compliant

This licence would not be acceptable to a large number of funders (RCUK,
Wellcome, ESF, NIH, etc.)

For this reason it is important that we stop using arbitrary words and
start using precise terms. If this is a "platinum" journal then I am not in
favour of this term.



-- 
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

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Beall, Jeffrey]

I think platinum open-access involves publishers and their journals or very 
often single journals, but green open-access is essentially self-archiving, 
including self-archiving of previously published stuff, usually in an 
institutional or disciplinary repository. 

Here's an example of what I would call a platinum open-access journal:

Journal of Library Innovation = http://www.libraryinnovation.org/

--Jeffrey Beall



-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Leslie Carr
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:35 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for 
open access

Is platinum effectively the same as green?

Sent from my iPad

On 26 Jul 2012, at 14:12, "Beall, Jeffrey"  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. 
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Associate Professor Auraria 
> Library University of Colorado Denver
> 1100 Lawrence St.
> Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
> (303) 556-5936
> jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> Reckling, Falk, Dr.
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:53 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the 
> dash for open access
> 
> 
> I think there is still a misunderstanding with Gold OA. Running a OA journal 
> does not necesserily mean to charges article fees!
> 
> Take Economics as an example: meanwhile there are some good OA 
> journals, most of them are new but with very prominent advisory boards 
> (which is a good predictor of being successful in the long run)
> 
> a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
> http://www.economics-ejournal.org/
> 
> b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): 
> http://econtheory.org/
> 
> c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding):
> http://journals.iza.org/
> 
> d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now 
> society based funding):
> http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php
> 
> All of them are without APCs, and that model also works in many other fields. 
> 
> What is needed is a very good editorial board and a basic funding by an 
> institution/society, or by a consortium of institutions or by a charity or ...
> 
> Or why not considering a megajournal in the Humanities and apply a 
> clever business model as PEERJ tries it right now in the Life 
> Science?: http://peerj.com/
> 
> In the end, it is up to the community to develop models which fit their needs 
> ...
> 
> Best Falk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 26.07.2012 um 12:09 schrieb "l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk" :
> 
>> The question isn't whether they're free or not, but whether they play 
>> major roles as venues and outlets for important Humanities 
>> scholarship.  And also it's still the case that traditional print 
>> journals involve long print cues and delays in publication.  And also 
>> it's the case that university libraries paying ridiculous 
>> subscription charges for journals in the Sciences have less funding 
>> for monographs (still the gold standard in Humanities), and even put 
>> pressure on Humanities to cut their journals.
>> Finally, there is the concern that the current move to "gold OA" with 
>> pages charges, etc., will adversely affect Humanities scholars.
>> So, please, no snap and simple replies.  Let's engage the problems.
>> Larry Hurtado
>> 
>> Quoting Jan Szczepanski  on Wed, 25 Jul
>> 2012 22:53:06 +0200:
>> 
>>> Is more than sixteen thousand free e-journals in the humanities and 
>>> social sciences of any importance in this discussion?
>>> 
>>> http://www.scribd.com/Jan%20Szczepanski
>>> 
>>> Jan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2012/7/25  :
 Webster concisely articulates the concerns that I briefly mooted a 
 few days ago.
 Larry Hurtado
 
 Quoting Omega Alpha Open Access  on Wed, 
 25 Jul 2012 11:03:30 -0400:
 
> Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open 
> access http://wp.me/p20y83-no
> 
> Nice article this morning by Peter Webster on the Research 
> Fortnight website entitled "Humanities left behind in the dash for 
> open access."
>  e =rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1214091> Check it out.
> 
> Webster observes that much of the current conversation around the 
> growth of open access focuses on the sciences and use of an 
> "author-pays" business model. He feels inadequate attention in the 
> conversation has been given to the unique needs of humanities 
>

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Reckling, Falk, Dr.]

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
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 
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

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Omega Alpha Open Access]

As I mentioned in my brief review which linked to Peter Webster's article, he 
isn't saying humanities scholars will reject OA, but there needs to be nuance 
within the larger conversation. His articulation was helpful to alert us to the 
fact that different disciplines take differing approaches to scholarly 
communication. Current funding models clearly favor the sciences, which tend to 
be more flush with cash to cover APCs (which, as has been discussed, are being 
exploited to keep commercial publishers in control of the system, and their 
revenues). 

I tend to agree with Falk, however. I appreciate the realities of disciplinary 
and institutional inertia, the power of tradition, and the fear of jeopardized 
reputations and (in the case of many scholarly societies) revenue streams. But 
there are now virtually no technical barriers for any community or group of 
scholars to start publishing a low cost OA journal before the end of day today 
(depending on your time zone). The tools are readily available. These journals 
can be designed to reduce the time period between submission and publication.

Whether new or existing, what is needed is for the scholarly communities and 
the respected scholars within these communities to AUTHORIZE these journals 
with their reputations. We will sit on editorial boards of these OA journals. 
We will serve as reviewers for these journals. We will submit our research 
articles to these journals. We will validate for our institutions the quality 
of the research published in these journals for tenure and promotion, and for 
the encouragement of junior scholars who are trying to build their own 
reputations. We will encourage our institutions' provosts, department heads, 
libraries and university presses to help fund/lend expertise to these journals 
as they grow and require more administrative and technical support.

Gary F. Daught
Omega Alpha | Open Access
http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com
Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology
oa.openacc...@gmail.com | @OAopenaccess

> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:52:56 +
> From: "Reckling, Falk, Dr." 
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the
>   dash for open access
> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" 
> Message-ID: <16331e0f-672a-45de-975e-16f583b71...@fwf.ac.at>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250"
> 
> 
> I think there is still a misunderstanding with Gold OA. Running a OA journal 
> does not necesserily mean to charges article fees!
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> What is needed is a very good editorial board and a basic funding by an 
> institution/society, or by a consortium of institutions or by a charity or ...
> 
> Or why not considering a megajournal in the Humanities and apply a clever 
> business model as PEERJ tries it right now in the Life Science?: 
> http://peerj.com/ 
> 
> In the end, it is up to the community to develop models which fit their needs 
> ...
> 
> Best Falk

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Leslie Carr]

Is platinum effectively the same as green?

Sent from my iPad

On 26 Jul 2012, at 14:12, "Beall, Jeffrey"  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. 
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Associate Professor
> Auraria Library
> University of Colorado Denver
> 1100 Lawrence St.
> Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
> (303) 556-5936
> jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> Reckling, Falk, Dr.
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:53 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash 
> for open access
> 
> 
> I think there is still a misunderstanding with Gold OA. Running a OA journal 
> does not necesserily mean to charges article fees!
> 
> Take Economics as an example: meanwhile there are some good OA journals, most 
> of them are new but with very prominent advisory boards (which is a good 
> predictor of being successful in the long run)
> 
> a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
> http://www.economics-ejournal.org/
> 
> b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): http://econtheory.org/
> 
> c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding):
> http://journals.iza.org/
> 
> d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now 
> society based funding):
> http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php
> 
> All of them are without APCs, and that model also works in many other fields. 
> 
> What is needed is a very good editorial board and a basic funding by an 
> institution/society, or by a consortium of institutions or by a charity or ...
> 
> Or why not considering a megajournal in the Humanities and apply a clever 
> business model as PEERJ tries it right now in the Life Science?: 
> http://peerj.com/ 
> 
> In the end, it is up to the community to develop models which fit their needs 
> ...
> 
> Best Falk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 26.07.2012 um 12:09 schrieb "l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk" :
> 
>> The question isn't whether they're free or not, but whether they play 
>> major roles as venues and outlets for important Humanities 
>> scholarship.  And also it's still the case that traditional print 
>> journals involve long print cues and delays in publication.  And also 
>> it's the case that university libraries paying ridiculous subscription 
>> charges for journals in the Sciences have less funding for monographs 
>> (still the gold standard in Humanities), and even put pressure on 
>> Humanities to cut their journals.
>> Finally, there is the concern that the current move to "gold OA" with 
>> pages charges, etc., will adversely affect Humanities scholars.
>> So, please, no snap and simple replies.  Let's engage the problems.
>> Larry Hurtado
>> 
>> Quoting Jan Szczepanski  on Wed, 25 Jul
>> 2012 22:53:06 +0200:
>> 
>>> Is more than sixteen thousand free e-journals in the humanities and 
>>> social sciences of any importance in this discussion?
>>> 
>>> http://www.scribd.com/Jan%20Szczepanski
>>> 
>>> Jan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2012/7/25  :
 Webster concisely articulates the concerns that I briefly mooted a 
 few days ago.
 Larry Hurtado
 
 Quoting Omega Alpha Open Access  on Wed, 25 
 Jul 2012 11:03:30 -0400:
 
> Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open 
> access http://wp.me/p20y83-no
> 
> Nice article this morning by Peter Webster on the Research 
> Fortnight website entitled "Humanities left behind in the dash for 
> open access."
>  =rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1214091> Check it out.
> 
> Webster observes that much of the current conversation around the 
> growth of open access focuses on the sciences and use of an 
> "author-pays" business model. He feels inadequate attention in the 
> conversation has been given to the unique needs of humanities 
> scholarship, and why it may be harder for humanist scholars to 
> embrace open access based on the "author-pays" model.
> 
> "There is no Public Library of History to match the phenomenally 
> successful Public Library of Science."
> .
> 
> Your comments are welcome.
> 
> Gary F. Daught
> Omega Alpha | Open Access
> Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and 
> theology http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com oa.openaccess @ 
> gmail.com | @OAopenaccess
> 
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 
> 
 
 

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Beall, Jeffrey
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

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Reckling, Falk, Dr.]

I find that distinction very useful, although mixed models like small 
submission fees, OA subscriptions (PEERJ) and others seem to arise ... 

Platinum OA actually implies that public research institutions (incl. 
charities) should (at least partly) increase their funding of  academic OA 
publishing. Not only to support OA as such but also because ... 
a) it helps smaller disciplines of all areas where third party funding is 
significantly lower as in the big disciplines of the Life and Natural Sciences. 
b) it could help to mitigate the price development for APCs by commercial 
publishers  

Best,
Falk

___ 
Falk Reckling, PhD
Humanities & Social Science
Strategic Analysis, Open Access

Department Head

Austrian Science Fund
Sensengasse 1
A-1090 Vienna 
Tel: +43-1-505 67 40-8301
Mobile: +43-699-19010147
Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/contact/personen/reckling_falk.html  




-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im Auftrag von 
Beall, Jeffrey
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Juli 2012 14:17
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

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. 


Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Associate Professor
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Reckling, Falk, Dr.
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:53 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for 
open access


I think there is still a misunderstanding with Gold OA. Running a OA journal 
does not necesserily mean to charges article fees!

Take Economics as an example: meanwhile there are some good OA journals, most 
of them are new but with very prominent advisory boards (which is a good 
predictor of being successful in the long run)

a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
http://www.economics-ejournal.org/

b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): http://econtheory.org/

c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding):
http://journals.iza.org/

d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now 
society based funding):
http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php

All of them are without APCs, and that model also works in many other fields. 

What is needed is a very good editorial board and a basic funding by an 
institution/society, or by a consortium of institutions or by a charity or ...

Or why not considering a megajournal in the Humanities and apply a clever 
business model as PEERJ tries it right now in the Life Science?: 
http://peerj.com/ 

In the end, it is up to the community to develop models which fit their needs 
...

Best Falk




Am 26.07.2012 um 12:09 schrieb "l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk" :

> The question isn't whether they're free or not, but whether they play 
> major roles as venues and outlets for important Humanities 
> scholarship.  And also it's still the case that traditional print 
> journals involve long print cues and delays in publication.  And also 
> it's the case that university libraries paying ridiculous subscription 
> charges for journals in the Sciences have less funding for monographs 
> (still the gold standard in Humanities), and even put pressure on 
> Humanities to cut their journals.
> Finally, there is the concern that the current move to "gold OA" with 
> pages charges, etc., will adversely affect Humanities scholars.
> So, please, no snap and simple replies.  Let's engage the problems.
> Larry Hurtado
> 
> Quoting Jan Szczepanski  on Wed, 25 Jul
> 2012 22:53:06 +0200:
> 
>> Is more than sixteen thousand free e-journals in the humanities and 
>> social sciences of any importance in this discussion?
>> 
>> http://www.scribd.com/Jan%20Szczepanski
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2012/7/25  :
>>> Webster concisely articulates the concerns that I briefly mooted a 
>>> few days ago.
>>> Larry Hurtado
>>> 
>>> Quoting Omega Alpha Open Access  on Wed, 25 
>>> Jul 2012 11:03:30 -0400:
>>> 
 Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open 
 access http://wp.me/p20y83-no
 
 Nice article this morning by Peter Webster on the Research 
 Fortnight website entitled "Humanities left behind in the dash for 
 open access."
  Check it out.
>

[GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access

[Beall, Jeffrey]

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. 


Jeffrey Beall, Metadata Librarian / Associate Professor
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Reckling, Falk, Dr.
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 4:53 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for 
open access


I think there is still a misunderstanding with Gold OA. Running a OA journal 
does not necesserily mean to charges article fees!

Take Economics as an example: meanwhile there are some good OA journals, most 
of them are new but with very prominent advisory boards (which is a good 
predictor of being successful in the long run)

a) E-conomics (institutional funding):
http://www.economics-ejournal.org/

b) Theoretical Economics (society based funding): http://econtheory.org/

c) 5x IZA journals published with SpringerOpen (institutional funding):
http://journals.iza.org/

d) Journal of Economic Perspective (a former subscription journal but now 
society based funding):
http://www.aeaweb.org/jep/index.php

All of them are without APCs, and that model also works in many other fields. 

What is needed is a very good editorial board and a basic funding by an 
institution/society, or by a consortium of institutions or by a charity or ...

Or why not considering a megajournal in the Humanities and apply a clever 
business model as PEERJ tries it right now in the Life Science?: 
http://peerj.com/ 

In the end, it is up to the community to develop models which fit their needs 
...

Best Falk




Am 26.07.2012 um 12:09 schrieb "l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk" :

> The question isn't whether they're free or not, but whether they play 
> major roles as venues and outlets for important Humanities 
> scholarship.  And also it's still the case that traditional print 
> journals involve long print cues and delays in publication.  And also 
> it's the case that university libraries paying ridiculous subscription 
> charges for journals in the Sciences have less funding for monographs 
> (still the gold standard in Humanities), and even put pressure on 
> Humanities to cut their journals.
> Finally, there is the concern that the current move to "gold OA" with 
> pages charges, etc., will adversely affect Humanities scholars.
> So, please, no snap and simple replies.  Let's engage the problems.
> Larry Hurtado
> 
> Quoting Jan Szczepanski  on Wed, 25 Jul
> 2012 22:53:06 +0200:
> 
>> Is more than sixteen thousand free e-journals in the humanities and 
>> social sciences of any importance in this discussion?
>> 
>> http://www.scribd.com/Jan%20Szczepanski
>> 
>> Jan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 2012/7/25  :
>>> Webster concisely articulates the concerns that I briefly mooted a 
>>> few days ago.
>>> Larry Hurtado
>>> 
>>> Quoting Omega Alpha Open Access  on Wed, 25 
>>> Jul 2012 11:03:30 -0400:
>>> 
 Hat Tip: Let's not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open 
 access http://wp.me/p20y83-no
 
 Nice article this morning by Peter Webster on the Research 
 Fortnight website entitled "Humanities left behind in the dash for 
 open access."
  Check it out.
 
 Webster observes that much of the current conversation around the 
 growth of open access focuses on the sciences and use of an 
 "author-pays" business model. He feels inadequate attention in the 
 conversation has been given to the unique needs of humanities 
 scholarship, and why it may be harder for humanist scholars to 
 embrace open access based on the "author-pays" model.
 
 "There is no Public Library of History to match the phenomenally 
 successful Public Library of Science."
 .
 
 Your comments are welcome.
 
 Gary F. Daught
 Omega Alpha | Open Access
 Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and 
 theology http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com oa.openaccess @ 
 gmail.com | @OAopenaccess
 
 
 ___
 GOAL mailing list
 GOAL@eprints.org
 http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
 
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE
>>> Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology 
>>> Honorary Professorial Fellow New College (School of Divinity) 
>>> University of Edinburgh Mound Place Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX Office 
>>> Phone:  (0)131 650 8920. FAX:  (0)131 650 7952 www.ed.

[GOAL] Re: RCUK & EC Did Not Follow Finch/Willets

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> On 2012-07-25, at 1:40 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> > From: Ari Belenkiy 
> > Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:50:34 -0700
> >
> > 1. Why the EU research must be immediately open for the non-EU
> > researchers (who are not, in particularly, EU-taxpayers)?
>
> > 2. Why the EU taxpayers, who contribute different amounts in tax, must
> > have equal opportunities to access the results of the EU research?
>
> The biomedical community has built up a publicly funded system of
top-quality information resources which are contributed to by the whole
world and which are available to the whole world. It is inconceivable that
we could compartmentalize this to a system where information was restricted
by country or by funder.

There are the following reasons for globalness:
* scientific unification. Scientists align themselves with their discipline
(peers) , their contributors and their beneficiaries - not with their
institution or country. Imagine if (say) Europe refused to let scientists
in infected countries have access to research on malaria and these refused
to let Europe have samples. And local problems are now globale problems -
Europe will be less and less immune from malaria both through global
warming and through globalization of the human race.
* economics. It is more inefficient to have localised resources which have
problems of duplication, non-communication, incompleteness, etc. than to
have world centres available to everyone. The Eur Bioinf Inst. (EBI) has a
model where research contributions are shared between countries, where each
contributes its speciality for the benefit of all.
* synergy. Science now and especially in the future will be about
synthesising information rather than reductionism. This has to be
completely free and with zero discovery time. Then we will all reap the
benefits of science.

The economic benefits of science come to those who have invested in the
science.  It may be true that in restricted areas (such as nuclear weapons)
this has to be done on a country-by-country basis. But in general the
countries that benefit are those which have a professional infrastructure
which produces high quality people (science, business, etc.) who can move
rapidly. The EU has (rightly) taken the decision to open its research - its
main problem IMO is to find the entrepreneurs and the business culture and
tax/legal system that allows rapid take up and wealth creation.

The US NIH has done a great job of providing global resources for
biomedical science. Its Pubmed Central is a great vision without which all
countries would be seriously impoverished. Unfortunately most of it is
closed to most of the world by the toll-access publishers and their lack of
vision and restrictive practices. Switzerland built Swissprot and the US
helped financially when it was in trouble. The EBI .in UK supports many
unique resources including those for drug discovery (ChemBL). Japan created
the Kyoto Enzyme database (KEGG) though this cannot be sustained now on a
free-to-access model. and so on.

The challenge - which not enough people are addressing - is how to use part
of the huge resources in science funding (perhaps 100-1000 Billion USD/
yr)  to build a completely Open (libre) system for scientific publication
and information. Europe should be praised for its commitment to this and we
should come up with new ways of doing this - neither Green nor Gold can
achieve more than partial and incompatible solutions. The countries that
invest in Open information will be the ones best placed to exploit the
coming Open information revolution.


-- 
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

[GOAL] Re: RCUK & EC Did Not Follow Finch/Willets

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2012-07-25, at 1:40 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: Ari Belenkiy 
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:50:34 -0700
> 
> Despite his valuable personal recollections, Steven Harnad  so far
> failed to answer  two my questions:
> 
> 1. Why the EU research must be immediately open for the non-EU
> researchers (who are not, in particularly, EU-taxpayers)?

Because research is done and reported in order to be used, applied 
and built upon by other researchers -- not just those who can
subscribe to the journal in which it appeared, or who live in the same
country as the researcher.

> 2. Why the EU taxpayers, who contribute different amounts in tax, must
> have equal opportunities to access the results of the EU research?

The primary purpose of providing OA is so that the primary intended
users of the research (researchers worldwide) can use, apply and
build upon it. Access by the interested public is a secondary bonus.

> [Of course, EU could be substituted here for Britain or the US or
> Russia or China or etc.]

If you want your research findings to be confidential and 
restricted, you don't publish them at all.

OA is for research published in peer-reviewed journals, for all
potential users. The journal price-tag is an access-restrictor.

Stevan Harnad

> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:56 PM, LIBLICENSE  wrote:
> 
>> From: Stevan Harnad 
>> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:26:01 -0400
>> 
>> I am flattered that Dr. Watkinson feels I had special influence on Ian
>> Gibson and his Select Committee. I wish I had had. But alas the truth
>> is as I have already written: I was not one of the 23 witnesses invited
>> to give oral evidence (several publishers were).  Ian's parliamentary
>> assistant Sarah Revell pencilled me in for a personal appointment on
>> Wednesday October 13 2004 if Ian's jury duty ended in time (it did) but
>> my recall of that breathless brief audience was that it was too
>> compressed for me to be able to stutter out much that made sense,
>> and I left it pretty pessimistic. And my over-zealous attempts to
>> compensate for it via email were very politely but firmly discouraged
>> by  the committee's very able clerk, Emily Commander. So my input
>> amounted  to being one of the 127 who submitted written evidence,
>> plus that tachylalic audience on the 13th. The rest of the influence
>> on the committee was from written reasons, not personal charisma.
>> 
>> As to publishers, and learned-society publishers: they are pretty
>> much of a muchness in their fealty to their bottom lines. The only
>> learned societies that could testify with a disinterested voice (let
>> alone one that represented the interests of learned research
>> rather than earned revenues) were the learned societies that
>> that were not also publishers.
>> 
>> Stevan Harnad
>> 
>> On 2012-07-22, at 10:42 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>> 
>>> From: ANTHONY WATKINSON 
>>> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:44:48 +0100
>>> 
>>> Of course publishers are going to lobby against the green route to
>>> open access: the arguments from publishers are well known and in no
>>> way hidden and whether or not the lobbying is aggressive is a matter
>>> of one's own perceptions surely.
>>> 
>>> Going back to 2003/2004 I was asked to be the expert adviser to the
>>> committee that we both referred to and had a pleasant conversation
>>> with Ian Gibson, the member of parliament who was the committee chair.
>>> It seemed to me in our conversation that Dr. Gibson had already been
>>> lobbied by Professor Harnad or his disciplines and that his mind was
>>> already made up. I cannot remember now whether or not Dr. Gibson said
>>> that he had met Professor Harnad but it was definitely the impression
>>> I had.
>>> 
>>> Anyway I refused the opportunity of influence because I did not think
>>> I could be dispassionate. I did propose working with someone closer to
>>> Professor Harnad's views (whom I named) and recommended other people
>>> who were neutral and could do the job. In the end Dr. Gibson plumped
>>> for David Worlock, who was an excellent choice.
>>> 
>>> I just do not believe on the basis of what others have told me - I
>>> have no direct knowledge and nor clearly has Professor Harnad - that
>>> the decisions of the Finch committee were pre-determined. Members of
>>> the committee I have spoken to do not confirm Professor Harnad's
>>> statements.
>>> 
>>> I find this statement fascinating:
>>> 
>>> "There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three
>>> publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing
>>> open access to publicly funded research".
>>> 
>>> I am impressed by the suggestion that Professor Harnad actually thinks
>>> that learned societies, organisations that represent the academic
>>> communities, should not be involved in decisions which will have such
>>> an impact on the said academic communities!
>>> 
>>> Anthony Watkinson

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mail