Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:00:20 +0100
Reply-To: American Scientist Open Access Forum
Sender: American Scientist Open Access Forum
From: Velterop <velterop@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Springer and Helmholtz Association sign agreement for open
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Like Hélène, I'm not so sure either about Heather's assertion that "one
of the major obstacles to green OA mandates has been publisher
opposition". For a start, in physics, deposition in the Arxiv preprint
server is customary, and publishers have by and large always seen that
as normal and acceptable (as they did with the paper preprint system
before Arxiv existed).
Is anyone on this list aware of credible research that shows how many
articles (in the last 5 years, say), outside physics and the Arxiv
preprint servers, have been made available with OA exclusively via
'green' archiving in respositories, and how many were made available
with OA directly ('gold') by the publishers (author-side paid or not)?
The 'gold' OA ones may of course also be available in repositories, but
shouldn't be counted for this purpose, as their OA status is not due to
them being 'green' OA. It is my hunch (to be verified or falsified) that
publishers (the 'gold' road) have actually done more to bring OA about
than repositories, even where mandated (the 'green' road).
For the avoidance of doubt, I include in 'gold' the OA articles that
were (krypto)subsidised and where the journal in which they were
published levied no author-side charges.
> Heather morrison said:
> "As all of us who have followed the Am Sci discussion list over the
> years know very well, one of the major obstacles to green OA mandates
> has been publisher opposition... "
> I have been following the AmSci Forum discussion list for many years,
> but I cannot remember seeing anything to the effect that "the major
> obstacle to green OA mandates has been publisher opposition"...
> Could you specify what you meant, by giving us the links to these
> discussions in the archives of the forum?
> Hélène Bosc
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Heather Morrison" <hgmorris@SFU.CA>
> To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM@LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Springer and Helmholtz Association sign agreement for
> open access membership
>> From my perspective, this announcement is very helpful and welcome,
>> and I am glad to see it on this list.
>> There are two approaches to open access, archives (green) and journals
>> (gold), and a list that covers both is more useful than a list which
>> focuses only on one. This is true even for those who have a strong
>> preference for one approach or the other.
>> How so?
>> If we assume that the OA archives (green) approach should be a first
>> priority, it still makes a lot of sense to see the Springer Helmholtz
>> agreement as a very useful interim step. As all of us who have
>> followed the Am Sci discussion list over the years know very well, one
>> of the major obstacles to green OA mandates has been publisher
>> opposition. Having a major publisher like Springer takes important
>> steps like this towards open access at once changes the conversation,
>> as does cooperation from a group like Helmholtz.
>> So congrats to Springer and Helmholtz!
>> Heather Morrison, MLIS
>> PhD Student, SFU School of Communication