Re: Stevan Harnad's misconception 2

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:14:05 +0000

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Velterop, Jan, Springer UK wrote:

> Misconception: OA publishers opposing OA.
>
> Stevan Harnad calls it "disappointing, if not deplorable" if OA
> publishers take a stance "against Open Access itself." Couldn't agree
> more, if that were indeed the case. But it isn't. It's an absurd notion
> that they are. 'Gold' OA publishers are definitely for Open Access.
> Strongly so.
>
> And they are not against 'green'. After all, they endorse 'green'. They
> are just not necessarily so fanatically for it to support a
> self-archiving *mandate* (which is not the same as an OA mandate) for
> non OA-published materials, since they see its flaws. Stevan seems to
> adhere to the Bush-Rumsfeld school of thought: "if you're not entirely,
> unquestioningly, and unequivocally for us, you're against us."

Leaving out the rhetoric:

(1) Does "OA" mean free online access?

(2) Will mandating self-archiving generate OA?

(3) Is Jan for mandating self-archiving?

Stevan Harnad



> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SPARC Open Access Forum [mailto:SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org]
> > On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> > Sent: 28 February 2007 04:09
> > To: SPARC Open Access Forum
> > Subject: [SOAF] Reply to Jan Velterop, and a Challenge to
> > "OA" Publishers Who Oppose Mandating OA via Self-Archiving
> >
> > ** Cross-Posted **
> >
> [cut]
> >
> > But what is especially disappointing, if not deplorable, is
> > when so-called "Open Access" publishers take exactly the same
> > stance against Open Access (OA) itself (sic) that
> > conventional publishers do.
> > Conventional publisher opposition to OA will be viewed,
> > historically, as having been a regrettable, counterproductive
> > (and eventually
> > countermanded) but comprehensible strategy, from a purely
> > business standpoint. OA publisher opposition to OA, however,
> > will be seen as having been self-deluded if not hypocritical.
> >
> > Let me be very specific: There are two ways to provide OA:
> > Either individual authors make their own (conventionally)
> > published journal article's final draft ("postprint") freely
> > accessible on the Web, or their journals make their published
> > drafts freely accessible on the Web.
> > The first is called "Green OA" (OA self-archiving) and the
> > second is called "Gold OA" (OA publishing).
> >
> > In other words, one of the forms of OA (OA publishing, Gold
> > OA) is a new form of publishing, whereas the other (Green OA)
> > is not: it is just conventional subscription-based publishing
> > plus author self-help, a supplement. Both forms of OA are
> > equivalent; both maximize research usage and impact. But one
> > depends on the author and the other depends on the publisher.
> >
> [cut]
>
Received on Wed Feb 28 2007 - 19:20:59 GMT