Thanks Helene, Yes you are not the first to be confused which was which because I put the terms in a different order.
Gold open access is 'born' open access - because it is published open in an open access journal (with or without a cost), or in a hybrid journal where the remainder of the journal remains under subscription (always incurs a cost). There are many, many times that the terms 'gold open access' has been taken to mean 'pay for open access'. Publishers of course have done little to dissuade this impression. Green open access is 'secondary' open access because it is published in a traditional manner (usually a susbcription journal) and a copy of the work is placed in a repository - institutional or subject. I hope that is a bit clearer. I agree it would not be easy to change. But we all used to call things preprints and postprints. That really made no sense because post-prints were not yet printed. We do not use those terms any more, not in the UK anyway. We use the terms Submitted Manuscript, Author's Accepted Manuscript (AAM) and Version of Record (VoR). Regards, Danny > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20150814/8a94cdff/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:28:01 +0200 > From: H?l?ne.Bosc <hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > To: "Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)" > <goal@eprints.org> > Message-ID: <8A81FFDC57274D9287431EE2740BA515@PCdeHelene> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Yes there is an appetite for trying to rebuilt the past in changing OA names! > But even if the words Green and Gold can hurt some people it has been adopted > for years now by all institutions, for example in European reports, since > 2006. See the last one in June 2015 : > http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-access-scientific-information > > Of course, everybody can rename Green and Gold as well as Open Access. But > the difficulty will be to get the change worldwide. > > Nicolas Pettiaux, for example proposed in a previous mail, "Libre" instead of > "Open Access"! > > Therefore mixing his idea with your option, "Born Open Access" and "Secondary > Open Access" could become "Born Libre" and "Trying to get Libre"... ;-) > > BTW, I am not sure that I have well understood what means Green and what > means Gold in your proposition! > > We could play on this list to find best definition and vote for it! But the > aim of Open Access is not to find the best OA word for 2015, then for 2016 > and for 2020! The aim is to stay clear for all stake holders, at the time of > important political decisions are taken. Policy makers seem to have > understood what is Green and what is Gold. They need only to have more > details on the true Gold and Green roads which really conduct to OA. > > To be efficient today, we just need to repeat what is precisely Green or > Gold, and how to get it, in each publication, conference, blog and forum, as > Stevan Harnad and Jean-Claude Gu?don do it for years now. > > H?l?ne Bosc > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Danny Kingsley > To: goal@eprints.org > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 6:56 PM > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > > > Hi all, > > There is some appetite it seems for looking at definitions at the moment. > In the last couple of weeks I have tweeted about the following: > > a.. COAR has a 'Resource Type Vocabulary Draft' - standard naming of > items in repositories available for comment - > https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/repository-interoperability/ig-controlled-vocabularies-for-repository-assets/deliverables/ > b.. Open Research Glossary' so we can all be more informed about vastly > complex topic 'Open Scholarship' - > http://blogs.egu.eu/network/palaeoblog/2015/07/14/the-open-research-glossary-round-2/ > c.. 'We hope to build a common dictionary of terms about open access to > facilitate sharing of information' http:// > http://dictionary.casrai.org/Open_Access_APC_Report > My issue is with the terms 'green' and 'gold' which are entirely > arbitrary. The main problem I have is that 'gold' implies 'the best' and it > implies 'expensive' and it is not necessarily either. > > If we have an option I think we should refer to these two routes to OA as > 'Born Open Access' and 'Secondary Open Access'. Considerably more > understandable to the external audience. > > Danny > > _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
