On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Velterop <[email protected]> wrote:
> The fact that you do not see the need for 'gold' OA publishing doesn't mean > [there isn't]. Time will tell who has been the most perspicacious. Agreed. Time will tell. But I never said there was no need for Gold OA publishers. In fact I listed four reasons why Gold OA publishers were important, the first of them being to demonstrate that there indeed exists a viable alternative if/when subscription publishing should become unsustainable. What I have always said was that *Green OA self-archiving needs to come first*, and I've also said why: to provide the immediate OA that research and researchers need today, instead of continuing to wait for Gold OA. This can be done, today, because Green OA can be mandated, today. At the same time, Green OA also prepares the way for a potential transition to Gold OA -- if and when universal Green OA should make subscriptions become unsustainable -- by providing the access and archiving in institutional repositories, for which Gold OA will eventually only need to provide the peer review and certification. And if universal Green OA does eventually make subscriptions unsustainable, it by the very same token releases the institutional subscription cancellation savings to pay for Gold OA (unlike today, when paying for Gold OA requires finding money over and above what is already tied up in paying for subscriptions). So, yes, time will tell. In fact, it's already told: Waiting for OA via Gold OA is a waste of time, and has been for at least 10 years. And to put Gold OA ahead of mandating Green OA is to keep throwing good money after bad. Zeno's Paralysis Symptom #31. Waiting for Gold http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#31.Waiting After mandating Green OA, however, all bets are off, and full steam ahead toward Gold OA, for those whose interest is publishing reform. For those whose interest is research accessibility, the mission will already be accomplished. Stevan Harnad
