[GOAL] Re: OA Provision vs. OA Semiolog
1. We are in fact just talking here about (a) which CC license should be adopted for Libre OA 2. And about (b) how publication costs are covered for Gold OA (subscription, author fees, or subsidies) 3. A clear understanding of green/gold and gratis/libre OA makes this all obvious 4. There is no need for more colours, which are intended to clarify and simplify, not to confuse and complicate 5. Peter Suber and I define green/gold and gratis/libre exactly the same way 6. There is no official definition of OA. There is nothing official about it. Terminology is for clarity. 7. Citing Jeffrey Beall certainly does not mean endorsement SH Taking leave of this rather repetitious and extremely uninformative discussion On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:56 AM, MIGUEL ERNESTO NAVAS FERNANDEZ miguel.na...@ub.edu wrote: Dear Stevan and all, Thanks for the links. I had read some of them. Nevertheless, http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html is what Peter Suber says, http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html is what you say, and http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html is yours as well. I of course recognize your expertise in this field, but these statements are not official to me. Others, as Jeffrey Bell, wrote Gold = free to reader, author pays article processing charge; Platinum = free to reader, free to author ( http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?A2=ind1304L=LIBLICENSE-LF=S=P=77120, linked by yourself in one of your articles mentioned). Some LAC authors use Platinum OA and Commercial OA (author pays) as sub-types of OA, and I don't see why they should be wrong. It's just a way to call it. What would you call it? Subsidized OA? OA without APCs? (just asking) You wrote There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms. Ok, but, as I wrote before, I think OA was not meant to be only gratis. Officialy (BBB) it was meant to be free of access + free to use. It's not open if it's not libre. The types gratis and libre came after, introduced by some authors (Suber, at least). So Platinum has been used by others. Scientists make the names. All scientists by all over the world. I don't think it is a banal discussion only on names. It's about points of view. With all due respect, I think that you and others are using a Western point of view, when OA should be treated through a universal point of view. Platinum OA is very important in LAC, not that important in Western countries, and that's why it is refused by Western authors. That's what I think. Thanks for your time. With kind regards, Miguel Navas-Fernández PhD Researcher at Universitat de Barcelona Member of Acceso Abierto research group Associate Editor of DOAJ ORCID Linkedin Twitter Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:42:44 -0400 From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com Subject: [GOAL] OA Provision vs. OA Semiology To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org Message-ID: CAE7iXOiAjEWG2wi9nZjZU9Akc+= b2jxx5nk80h4hghguj7-...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 The purpose of terminology and definitions is to clarify and simplify their referents. The BBB description of OA, based on the first B in 2002 http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read, was updated in 2008 http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html to distinguish Green from Gold OA and Gratis from Libre OA, exactly along the lines described: See also: On Diamond OA, Platinum OA, Titanium OA, and Overlay-Journal OA, Again http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html and Paid Gold OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color Cacophony http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html (2013) And, to repeat: There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms (of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the latter not to be confused with gratis]) After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it... Stevan Harnad Aquest correu electrònic i els annexos poden contenir informació confidencial o protegida legalment i està adreçat exclusivament a la persona o entitat destinatària. Si no sou el destinatari final o la persona encarregada de rebre’l, no esteu autoritzat a llegir-lo, retenir-lo, modificar-lo, distribuir-lo, copiar-lo ni a revelar-ne el contingut. Si heu rebut aquest correu electrònic per error, us preguem que n’informeu al remitent i que elimineu del sistema el missatge i el material annex que pugui contenir. Gràcies per la vostra col·laboració. Este correo electrónico y sus anexos pueden contener información confidencial o legalmente protegida y está exclusivamente dirigido a la persona o entidad destinataria. Si usted no es
[GOAL] Re: OA Provision vs. OA Semiolog
Dear Stevan and all, Thanks for the links. I had read some of them. Nevertheless, http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html is what Peter Suber says, http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html is what you say, and http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html is yours as well. I of course recognize your expertise in this field, but these statements are not official to me. Others, as Jeffrey Bell, wrote Gold = free to reader, author pays article processing charge; Platinum = free to reader, free to author (http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?A2=ind1304L=LIBLICENSE-LF=S=P=77120, linked by yourself in one of your articles mentioned). Some LAC authors use Platinum OA and Commercial OA (author pays) as sub-types of OA, and I don't see why they should be wrong. It's just a way to call it. What would you call it? Subsidized OA? OA without APCs? (just asking) You wrote There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms. Ok, but, as I wrote before, I think OA was not meant to be only gratis. Officialy (BBB) it was meant to be free of access + free to use. It's not open if it's not libre. The types gratis and libre came after, introduced by some authors (Suber, at least). So Platinum has been used by others. Scientists make the names. All scientists by all over the world. I don't think it is a banal discussion only on names. It's about points of view. With all due respect, I think that you and others are using a Western point of view, when OA should be treated through a universal point of view. Platinum OA is very important in LAC, not that important in Western countries, and that's why it is refused by Western authors. That's what I think. Thanks for your time. With kind regards, Miguel Navas-Fernández PhD Researcher at Universitat de Barcelona Member of Acceso Abierto research group Associate Editor of DOAJ ORCID Linkedin Twitter Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:42:44 -0400 From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com Subject: [GOAL] OA Provision vs. OA Semiology To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org Message-ID: CAE7iXOiAjEWG2wi9nZjZU9Akc+=b2jxx5nk80h4hghguj7-...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 The purpose of terminology and definitions is to clarify and simplify their referents. The BBB description of OA, based on the first B in 2002 http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read, was updated in 2008 http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/08/greengold-oa-and-gratislibre-oa.html to distinguish Green from Gold OA and Gratis from Libre OA, exactly along the lines described: See also: On Diamond OA, Platinum OA, Titanium OA, and Overlay-Journal OA, Again http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/993-.html and Paid Gold OA Versus Free Gold OA: Against Color Cacophony http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1003-html (2013) And, to repeat: There is no Platinum OA. OA is about access, not about funding mechanisms (of which there are three: subscription fee, publication fee, or subsidy [the latter not to be confused with gratis]) After at least a decade and a half I think it would be a good idea to stop fussing about what to call it, and focus instead on providing it... Stevan Harnad Aquest correu electrònic i els annexos poden contenir informació confidencial o protegida legalment i està adreçat exclusivament a la persona o entitat destinatària. Si no sou el destinatari final o la persona encarregada de rebre’l, no esteu autoritzat a llegir-lo, retenir-lo, modificar-lo, distribuir-lo, copiar-lo ni a revelar-ne el contingut. Si heu rebut aquest correu electrònic per error, us preguem que n’informeu al remitent i que elimineu del sistema el missatge i el material annex que pugui contenir. Gràcies per la vostra col·laboració. Este correo electrónico y sus anexos pueden contener información confidencial o legalmente protegida y está exclusivamente dirigido a la persona o entidad destinataria. Si usted no es el destinatario final o la persona encargada de recibirlo, no está autorizado a leerlo, retenerlo, modificarlo, distribuirlo, copiarlo ni a revelar su contenido. Si ha recibido este mensaje electrónico por error, le rogamos que informe al remitente y elimine del sistema el mensaje y el material anexo que pueda contener. Gracias por su colaboración. This email message and any documents attached to it may contain confidential or legally protected material and are intended solely for the use of the individual or organization to whom they are addressed. We remind you that if you are not the intended recipient of this email message or the person responsible for processing it, then you are not authorized to read, save, modify, send, copy or disclose any of its contents. If you have received this email message by mistake, we kindly ask you to inform the
