Re: Green Party Green on Gold but not on Green

From: Matthew Cockerill <matt_at_BIOMEDCENTRAL.COM>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 13:04:05 +0100

"Gold" - i.e. open access publishing, is not a business model, it is
simply a measure of the level of service provided by the publisher.

Does the publisher make the final full text version of the article
immediately and universally available online?
If so, it is an open access publisher, regardless of the business model.

Looking at the many Open Access journals that already exist, it seems
clear that there are multiple models compatible with delivering that
quality of service.
Advertising-supported, institutionally-supported, foundation-
supported, government-supported, society membership dues supported,
print subscription supported, commercial reprint supported, and
article processing charge supported, to name just a few.

The research community (which, largely from its own public funding,
pays publishers for the service they provide) already makes several
quality of service demands on publishers. For example, it is
currently enforced by community standards in most disciplines that
journals must peer review the research they publish, if they are to
be taken seriously. It is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that
community standards will evolve to require that publishers make
research openly available immediately on publication. Given that the
research community is paying for the service from publishers - they
*can* call the tune.

Matthew Cockerill
BioMed Central

On 10 Sep 2005, at 12:24, Stevan Harnad wrote:

>
> The publisher lobby (ALPSP and STM) is arguing for further delay in
> implementing this "green" policy on the grounds that (i) it may damage
> their revenues and (ii) it is an attempt to impose a change in
> business
> model on them. All objective evidence is contrary to (i); and (ii) is
> incorrect (gold is a business model, for publishers; green is merely a
> condition on receiving funding, for researchers).
Received on Sat Sep 10 2005 - 15:35:29 BST