On 2013-04-18, at 11:59 PM, Shigeki Sugita <ssug...@chiba-u.jp> wrote:
> Someone please teach me about the original meanings or implications of
> "green" and "gold" at the time of the first BOAI recommendation. Why was
> self-archving named as "green" and OA journals as "gold"?
>
> green: green light? "RoMEO-green"?
> gold: highest grade? (like "Gold Medal")
The original BOAI in 2002 consisted of two strategies, BOAI-1 and BOAI-2:
To achieve open access to scholarly journal literature, we recommend two
complementary strategies.
I. Self-Archiving: First, scholars need the tools and assistance to deposit
their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives, a practice
commonly called, self-archiving. When these archives conform to standards
created by the Open Archives Initiative, then search engines and other tools
can treat the separate archives as one. Users then need not know which archives
exist or where they are located in order to find and make use of their contents.
II. Open-access Journals: Second, scholars need the means to launch a new
generation of journals committed to open access, and to help existing journals
that elect to make the transition to open access. Because journal articles
should be disseminated as widely as possible, these new journals will no longer
invoke copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they publish.
Instead they will use copyright and other tools to ensure permanent open access
to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to access, these
new journals will not charge subscription or access fees, and will turn to
other methods for covering their expenses. There are many alternative sources
of funds for this purpose, including the foundations and governments that fund
research, the universities and laboratories that employ researchers, endowments
set up by discipline or institution, friends of the cause of open access,
profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts, funds freed up by the
demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional subscription or access
fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves. There is no need
to favor one of these solutions over the others for all disciplines or nations,
and no need to stop looking for other, creative alternatives.
These were then dubbed Green OA and Gold OA, respectively, in 2004:
Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y,
Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E. (2004) The Access/Impact Problem
and the Green and Gold Roads to Open Access. Serials Review 30. Shorter
version: The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature Web Focus.
None of this has anything to do with "highest grade" or "Gold Medals".
And SHERPA Romeo's colour-code is regrettably (but incorrigibly, despite
repeated requests across the years) at odds with the BOAI distinction, because
it arbitrarily restricts "green" to publishers who endorse the self-archiving
of both unrefereed preprints and refereed postprints, and "blue" for publishers
who endorse the self-archiving of regereed postprints only, but not preprints:
Both SHERPA/Romeo "green" and SHERPA/Romeo "blue" are of course BOAI Green.
Metaphorically, one can say that Green OA is an ecological, self-help solution,
on the part of the research community. Gold OA is a "de luxe" solution that
also depends on the conversion of publishers to another cost-recovery model.
My own view is that Globally Green OA mandates will first provide 100% OA and
then induce publishers to convert to Gold OA (at a fair price: Fair Gold).
Stevan Harnad
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
