Jan - you say it is an absurb notion that publishers are taking a
stance against open access itself, and that publishers are not
against 'green'.
Yet the Brussels Declaration on STM publishing, which your own
company (Springer) signed, declares it as a self-evident principle that:
11. Open deposit of accepted manuscripts risks destabilizing
subscription revenues and undermining peer review.
There is nothing in this statement indicating an endorsement of
green, or an endorsement of open access by any flavor.
If publishers endorse green - and it seems that most do, as the vast
majority of journals already allow the self-archiving that the open
access mandates would require - then publishers should be supporting
open access mandates.
Which is it for Springer, Jan - do you endorse green, or vigorously
oppose it?
best,
This post reflects my personal opinion only and does not represent
the opinions or policy of the BC Electronic Library Network or the
Simon Fraser University Library.
Heather Morrison
Project Coordinator, BC Electronic Library Network
heatherm_at_eln.bc.ca
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
On 28-Feb-07, at 9:02 AM, 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."
>
> Jan Velterop
>
>> -----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 - 21:01:49 GMT