Hybrid-Gold Discount From Publishers That Embargo Green OA: No Deal

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:05:18 -0400

I am not at all sure that Kudos are in order for Oxford University
Press (OUP), just because they offer authors at subscribing
institutions a discount on their hybrid Gold OA fee:

Unlike the American Psychological Association (yes, the much
maligned APA!), the American Physical Society, Elsevier, Cambridge
University Press and all the other 232 publishers (57%) of the 6457
journals (63%) that are on the side of the angels-- fully Green on
immediate post-print self-archiving -- OUP is among the Pale-Green
minority of 48 publishers (12%) of 3228 journals (32%). OUP's
post-print policy is:
      - 12 month embargo on science, technology, medicine
      articles
      - 24 month embargo on arts and humanities articles
      - Pre-print can only be posted prior to acceptance
      - Pre-print must not be replaced with post-print, instead
      a link to published [toll] version 
      - Articles in some journals can be made Open Access on
      payment of additional charge

Should we really be singing the praises of each publisher's discount
on their hybrid Gold OA fee for the double-payment they are exacting
(from the subscribers as well as the authors)?

I would stop applauding as progress for OA every self-interested step
taken by those publishers who do not first take the minimum step of
going Green. 

Yes, OUP are lowering fees annually in proportion to hybrid Gold OA
uptake, but they are meanwhile continuing to hold the post-print
hostage for 12-24 months. 

In reality, all the fee reduction means is an adjustment for
double-dipping -- plus a lock-in on the price of Gold OA, and a
lockout of Green OA.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Received on Sun Jul 27 2008 - 23:36:01 BST