[GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving
No quarrel with all this. I just wanted to point out that an OA journal, technically, is very close to a repository, at least at its basic level. Modular functions can be added, of course, but they can also move across platforms without much trouble. As for the vocabulary: repository, archive, depository, whatever... We might want to make this terminology a bit more rigorous, but it is not a major issue Imho. Incidentally, from what I have just said, it is not difficult to understand why I believe that OA journals and repositories will converge (mixing and matching). I see the emergence of mega-journals as a potent sign of this. Best, Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 21 janvier 2013 à 11:42 +1100, Arthur Sale a écrit : I think we are now getting into an off-target area: not open access but archiving. It is really unfortunate that open access repositories were ever called archives. Heather is right. In the past print publishers of books and journals just had to print them onto papyrus, vellum, or paper, using a non-ephemeral ink, and rely on dissemination (and libraries) to do the preservation. Preservation in the digital era is a different matter, having to cope with ephemeral media and error-resistant information (the opposite of the Gutenberg era). But this is not central open access stuff, important though it is. Of course, to forestall comment by someone who wants to carp, the lifetime of research outputs does vary. In some disciplines it is of the order of a year or two on average, in others perhaps of centuries, to use the extremes. Arthur Sale Tasmania, Australia -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013 10:11 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving On 20-Jan-13, at 2:25 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: (excerpt) Some forms of Gold do not require any more payment than what is needed to maintain a repository. In fact, an OA Gold journal is a repository of its own articles. Comment: a gold OA journal serves as a repository, however it is important to understand that any journal, or the open access status of a journal, may be ephemeral in nature. Journals are archived and preserved by libraries, not by journals and publishers. This is important to understand because gold open access without open access archives is highly vulnerable. Journals can simply disappear, or be sold by open access publishers to toll access publishers. For this reason I argue that open access archives are absolutely essential to sustainable open access. best, Heather ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving
Jean-Claude raises an important point: from a technical perspective, there is no necessary difference between journal repositories and other types of repositories. Ideally, all will be interoperable for searching purposes and cross-deposit will be routine. The only difference is what is collected in a given repository. A journal collects the works that belong in the journal, a disciplinary repository the articles that fit a particular discipline, an institutional repository the output of the institution. Other signs that this is already beginning to happen: Library scholarly communication services frequently combine journal hosting and the institutional repository, sometimes using the same software. The SWORD protocol facilitates cross-deposit, including journal / repository cross-deposit. A growing number of journals, both OA and non-OA, routinely deposit all articles in repositories as well - e.g. BioMedCentral deposits in both PMC and institutional repositories (where this is technically feasible); a number of journals deposit all articles in E-LIS for preservation purposes. OJS (and likely other open access journal platforms) supports the OAI-PMH protocol, facilitating cross-searching of journals and repositories. From a searching perspective, the tendency to start from databases or internet search engines like Google rather than browsing journals has been a growing factor for years, predating open access. What is surprising is not the convergence per se, but rather how long the transition is taking considering how much sense this makes. It is good to see that mathematicians are taking the lead in furthering what to me is an obvious next stage in publishing, overlay journals building on repositories: http://www.nature.com/news/mathematicians-aim-to-take-publishers-out-of-publishing-1.12243 Years ago I would have argued that the question of archiving and preservation could be left to a later date and should not distract from the task of making the work open access in the first place. Now that we already have more than 20% of the world's scholarly literature freely available within a couple of years of publication, and the emergence of the possibility of publication of research data becoming routine, I argue that this task needs to be addressed - not to delay or distract us from making open access happen, but rather at the same time. On the ground it is generally different people who are involved in the tasks of preserving information, so moving forward with this need not take anything away from the primary drive to OA. One of the arguments for deposit in the institutional repository is that the work will be preserved - many an IR service now needs to go about the task of fulfilling this promise. best, Heather Morrison The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com On 2013-01-21, at 8:02 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: No quarrel with all this. I just wanted to point out that an OA journal, technically, is very close to a repository, at least at its basic level. Modular functions can be added, of course, but they can also move across platforms without much trouble. As for the vocabulary: repository, archive, depository, whatever... We might want to make this terminology a bit more rigorous, but it is not a major issue Imho. Incidentally, from what I have just said, it is not difficult to understand why I believe that OA journals and repositories will converge (mixing and matching). I see the emergence of mega-journals as a potent sign of this. Best, Jean-Claude Guédon Le lundi 21 janvier 2013 à 11:42 +1100, Arthur Sale a écrit : I think we are now getting into an off-target area: not open access but archiving. It is really unfortunate that open access repositories were ever called archives. Heather is right. In the past print publishers of books and journals just had to print them onto papyrus, vellum, or paper, using a non-ephemeral ink, and rely on dissemination (and libraries) to do the preservation. Preservation in the digital era is a different matter, having to cope with ephemeral media and error-resistant information (the opposite of the Gutenberg era). But this is not central open access stuff, important though it is. Of course, to forestall comment by someone who wants to carp, the lifetime of research outputs does vary. In some disciplines it is of the order of a year or two on average, in others perhaps of centuries, to use the extremes. Arthur Sale Tasmania, Australia -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org ] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013 10:11 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving On 20-Jan-13, at 2:25 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: (excerpt) Some forms of Gold do
[GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving
, the lifetime of research outputs does vary. In some disciplines it is of the order of a year or two on average, in others perhaps of centuries, to use the extremes. Arthur Sale Tasmania, Australia -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org ] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013 10:11 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving On 20-Jan-13, at 2:25 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: (excerpt) Some forms of Gold do not require any more payment than what is needed to maintain a repository. In fact, an OA Gold journal is a repository of its own articles. Comment: a gold OA journal serves as a repository, however it is important to understand that any journal, or the open access status of a journal, may be ephemeral in nature. Journals are archived and preserved by libraries, not by journals and publishers. This is important to understand because gold open access without open access archives is highly vulnerable. Journals can simply disappear, or be sold by open access publishers to toll access publishers. For this reason I argue that open access archives are absolutely essential to sustainable open access. best, Heather ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal . ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving
1. Mandatory Green OA self-archiving in Stevan's meaning is fine for the disciplines to which it applies; It applies to (the refereed journal articles of) *all* disciplines: No exceptions. 2. Other tactics are also fine, in particular some flavours of Gold (OA journal publishing), and again this depends on the disciplines and the situations; Paying for Gold without first mandating Green is always not-fine. But once Green has been effectively mandated, spare cash can be spent ad libitum. 3. Pursuing OA with tactics that amount to leaving most HSS disciplines aside is not acceptable, even when presented as a first step. Green OA self-archiving of all journal articles first needs to be mandated, by all institutions and funders, in all disciplines (ID/OA). That done, nolo contender about further steps. 4. Books can be self-archived, even if it be limited to a dark archive. Definitely! Books can be deposited in institutional repositories as Closed Access deposits. The same issue exists with articles when publishers refuse self-archiving, or require a long embargo. The crucial and consequential differences being that: (1) all article authors (but not all book authors -- perhaps even far from all book authors) will want to use the repository's reprint-request Button to provide a free copy to all individual requesters. and (2) all article authors (but not all book authors -- perhaps even far from all book authors) will want the OA embargo to be none, or as short as possible. Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving
Le dimanche 20 janvier 2013 à 16:52 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit : 1. Mandatory Green OA self-archiving in Stevan's meaning is fine for the disciplines to which it applies; It applies to (the refereed journal articles of) *all* disciplines: No exceptions. Indeed, but in a number of disciplines, articles are second-rate publications. So this amounts to excluding such disciplines by making Green OA of little relevance he specialists working in these disciplines. [snip] Paying for Gold without first mandating Green is always not-fine. Some forms of Gold do not require any more payment than what is needed to maintain a repository. In fact, an OA Gold journal is a repository of its own articles. The costs of an OA journal, especially when using tools such as the Open Journal System are in the same ball park as repositories. So Gold can be achieved with as much financial effort as Green. In fact, a repository could and ought to host local journals. Repositories and journals managed in the same institution could easily work together. [snip] 3. Pursuing OA with tactics that amount to leaving most HSS disciplines aside is not acceptable, even when presented as a first step. Green OA self-archiving of all journal articles first needs to be mandated, by all institutions and funders, in all disciplines (ID/OA). OK. This is clear. This is precisely the point where we disagree. You insist on a rigidly defined first step; I argue in favour of your first step, or other first steps, depending on situations, circumstances and opportunities. [snip] 4. Books can be self-archived, even if it be limited to a dark archive. Definitely! Books can be deposited in institutional repositories as Closed Access deposits. Good. The same issue exists with articles when publishers refuse self-archiving, or require a long embargo. The crucial and consequential differences being that: (1) all article authors (but not all book authors -- perhaps even far from all book authors) will want to use the repository's reprint-request Button to provide a free copy to all individual requesters. True if the repository does not provide the author with a private digital copy of his/her own book. But this should not be too difficult to achieve. Otherwise, authors of scholarly books will want maximum visibility, just like article authors. and (2) all article authors (but not all book authors -- perhaps even far from all book authors) will want the OA embargo to be none, or as short as possible. That I do not understand. Except for the rare monographs where economic rewards are real, removing the embargo would be beneficial to the authors, as is the case for the articles. Books are pulped by publishers rather quickly after publication, because storage is expensive. Authors know this, and they know that this procedure essentially kills their book. OA would solve this problem for both sides, and this is one of the arguments that OAPEN usedin favour of its programme. Jean-Claude Guédon Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving
On 20-Jan-13, at 2:25 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: (excerpt) Some forms of Gold do not require any more payment than what is needed to maintain a repository. In fact, an OA Gold journal is a repository of its own articles. Comment: a gold OA journal serves as a repository, however it is important to understand that any journal, or the open access status of a journal, may be ephemeral in nature. Journals are archived and preserved by libraries, not by journals and publishers. This is important to understand because gold open access without open access archives is highly vulnerable. Journals can simply disappear, or be sold by open access publishers to toll access publishers. For this reason I argue that open access archives are absolutely essential to sustainable open access. best, Heather ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving
I think we are now getting into an off-target area: not open access but archiving. It is really unfortunate that open access repositories were ever called archives. Heather is right. In the past print publishers of books and journals just had to print them onto papyrus, vellum, or paper, using a non-ephemeral ink, and rely on dissemination (and libraries) to do the preservation. Preservation in the digital era is a different matter, having to cope with ephemeral media and error-resistant information (the opposite of the Gutenberg era). But this is not central open access stuff, important though it is. Of course, to forestall comment by someone who wants to carp, the lifetime of research outputs does vary. In some disciplines it is of the order of a year or two on average, in others perhaps of centuries, to use the extremes. Arthur Sale Tasmania, Australia -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013 10:11 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving On 20-Jan-13, at 2:25 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: (excerpt) Some forms of Gold do not require any more payment than what is needed to maintain a repository. In fact, an OA Gold journal is a repository of its own articles. Comment: a gold OA journal serves as a repository, however it is important to understand that any journal, or the open access status of a journal, may be ephemeral in nature. Journals are archived and preserved by libraries, not by journals and publishers. This is important to understand because gold open access without open access archives is highly vulnerable. Journals can simply disappear, or be sold by open access publishers to toll access publishers. For this reason I argue that open access archives are absolutely essential to sustainable open access. best, Heather ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Please distinguish what is and is not relevant to mandating Green OA self-archiving
Good point about the instability of journals, Heather, but the same instability applies to repositories. The CIHR policy change in Canada, that you recently pointed out, extending the embargo to 12 months, is a case in point. The rules under which one may archiver are at the discretion of publishers, alas. Journals were archived by libraries in the print world. In digital formats, this has become a contentious terrain. I agree that Gold is strengthened by Green's repositories; Green has its own vulnerabilities, such as moving from gratis to libre. Together, Gold and Green can help each other. Jean-Claude Guédon Le dimanche 20 janvier 2013 à 15:10 -0800, Heather Morrison a écrit : On 20-Jan-13, at 2:25 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: (excerpt) Some forms of Gold do not require any more payment than what is needed to maintain a repository. In fact, an OA Gold journal is a repository of its own articles. Comment: a gold OA journal serves as a repository, however it is important to understand that any journal, or the open access status of a journal, may be ephemeral in nature. Journals are archived and preserved by libraries, not by journals and publishers. This is important to understand because gold open access without open access archives is highly vulnerable. Journals can simply disappear, or be sold by open access publishers to toll access publishers. For this reason I argue that open access archives are absolutely essential to sustainable open access. best, Heather ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
