On 14-Dec-04, at 5:13 PM, Rick Anderson wrote: > This is the part I don't get. If we're fooling ourselves to think that > there's anything particularly attractive to authors about publishing in > a Gold journal, then why is it a given that we should encourage and > support the development of Gold journals? If Green is good enough for > authors, readers and publishers, then what's the point of fostering > Gold?
There are situations where considering open access publishing (the Gold road) simply makes the most sense. For example, when there is no profit involved and a journal is subsidized (which is not unusual), then the difference between OA and non-OA publishing is that OA costs less (no authentication system and support for same, no subscription tracking if electronic only). Here, there are clearcut economic as well as impact advantages. When new journals are being started, particularly when the impetus comes from academia rather than the publishing industry, it just makes sense to consider OA publishing as the way of the future. For well-established journals and publishers, green policies, making as much material openly accessible, and well-thought-out OA experiments do make sense. In other words, the best road to open access depends on your starting point. If you are starting a new electronic-only journal in a third world country and your concerns are impact both for your journal and your authors, and you have no expectation of profit, open access publishing just makes sens. If you are a well-established publisher, a preference for policies allowing for self-archiving and experimenting with new OA business models is perfectly understandable. In this context, it seems that almost everyone in academia and the publishing community are more or less moving towards open access, albeit in slightly different ways. cheers, Heather G. Morrison Project Coordinator BC Electronic Library Network ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Phone: 604-268-7001 Fax: 604-291-3023 Email: heath...@eln.bc.ca Web: http://www.eln.bc.ca