On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, David Goodman wrote:
> The use of codes in your reply is _exactly_ what I am protesting about.
>
> BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
> journal whenever one exists.
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
> BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
> toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
> http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
>
> All this was fine when we were speculating remote from the mainstream,
> but not when we are reaching the point of public acceptance. That your
> definitions are not generally understood or accepted is demonstrated by
> the previous 2 weeks worth of confused discussion about what is and what
> isn't open access.
(1) The definitions of BOAI-1 and BOAI-2 are not mine. (Are you objecting
to their content or their color?)
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
(2) I would say public consciousness of OA is rising, but to call this
"public acceptance" is rather overstating it, particularly as OA is
not in the hands of the public but in the hands of journal article authors
and their institutions, funders and publishers.
(3) The lion's share of the current confusion about OA is because
the recent increase in public consciousness of OA arose partly from
unilateral promotion of BOAI-2 (OA publishing), as if OA Publishing
were all or most of OA. It is not. Far from it. And the current confusion
on that score needs to be corrected, not compounded:
"On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html
"The Green and Gold Roads to Open Access"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3147.html
"The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3378.html
Stevan Harnad
Received on Mon Mar 22 2004 - 13:19:06 GMT