Martin Hall: "Green or Gold? Open Access After Finch" http://uksg.metapress.com/content/e062u112h295h114/fulltext.html
Fuller hyperlinked version of this posting: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/956-guid.html The substance of Martin Hall's defence of the Finch recommendation that the UK should (double-)pay for Gold instead of strengthening its mandate for Green is that (1) Gold provides the publisher's version of record, rather than just the author's peer-reviewed final draft, that (2) Gold provides text-mining rights and that (3) Gold is the way to solve the journal price problem. What Hall does not even consider is whether the publisher's version of record and text-mining rights are worth the asking price of Gold, compared to cost-free Green. His account (like everyone else's) is also astonishingly vague and fuzzy about how the transition to Gold is to take place in the UK. *And Hall (like Finch) completely fails to take the rest of the world into account.* All the reckoning about the future of publishing is based on the UK's policy for its 6%. Hall quotes Peter Suber's objection but does not answer it. The Swan/Houghton economic analyses, too, are cited by Hall, as if in support, but in fact not heeded at all. Stevan Harnad
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
