On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Velterop <velterop_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Comparing 'green' and 'gold' is tricky, as 'gold', by definition, includes 'green', whereas 'green' doesn't necessarily include 'gold'.
That was precisely what we controlled for in the data Yassine Gargouri
posted, systematically separating Green from Gold/Green.
> That said, Yassine's post is interesting, and the focus on showing the advantages of OA is commendable. Those advantages, of course, accrue to both 'gold' and 'green' OA. That there are more 'green only' (as distinct from 'gold' including 'green') articles in repositories as a result of mandates, if one only looks at ISI impact factored journals, is not surprising, as articles and journals published with OA only slowly reach the counters of the impact factory.
Gargouri's posting was not about the OA citation advantage but only
about the percentage OA -- Green and Gold -- with and without mandates
(which are and can only be Green OA self-archiving mandates: and
that's the real point of the comparison). (And the outcome described
in the posting has nothing to do with the speed with which ISI picks
up citations.)
Gargouri et al's PLOS preprint was indeed about the OA citation
Advantage. And yes, this Advantage does accrue to Green OA and Gold OA
alike. But the only form in which OA and non-OA can be compared for
equivalent content is by comparing OA vs. non-OA articles within the
same journal/year -- not by comparing OA vs. non-OA journals. That's
the other reason we focus on Green.
> Comparing 'green' and 'gold', although academically interesting, is a fairly marginal issue anyway, compared, so to speak, to comparing OA and non-OA.
It's a marginal issue for testing the OA Advantage (except for the
methodological problem I mentioned), but comparing Gold and Green is
anything but marginal for the prospects of generating OA, today -- for
Green OA (precisely because it can be mandated) has scope for
generating 100% OA virtually overnight.
(The reason it has not happened overnight is a complex and ironic one,
to be sorted out by future historians of this transitional era. It has
much to do with human nature and habits, but the upshot is that
researchers -- most of whom are too sluggish to provide OA to their
research for free, by self-archiving it, until and unless [Green OA]
self-archiving is mandated by their institutions or funders --
certainly aren't going to provide OA for a fee, by paying a [Gold OA]
journal to provide it. *That*'s why it is so crucially important to
dispel the illusion that Gold OA is generating more OA than Green OA
[whether unmandated or mandated]: For most of the scope for rapid OA
growth is with Green OA and Green OA mandates, not Gold OA. That is
why Green OA must come first. And, besides researchers and research
progress itself, Gold OA will be the beneficiary of Green OA's
becoming universal. That will make it far more likely that the
remaining 90% of journals that are non-OA (including most of the top
journals today) will convert to Gold OA.)
But the point is that getting Green OA mandated first is a win/win
outcome, for both researchers and for Gold OA publishers.
> The success of PLoS, BMC (now Springer), Hindawi, and others is remarkable. Their journals deliver voluntary, immediate OA, predictable OA (if you see any article in their journals referenced, you know it is OA; they are easily accessible in multiple formats; you don't have to lose time trying to find out whether they are somewhere in an open repository)
Come on, Jan! You and I know that articles are searched and found via
database searches (PubMed, WoS, SCOPUS, Scirus, Google Scholar, etc.
etc.) and that those databases increasingly (and easily) provide links
to the available online versions. The fact is that many more of those
links are to a Green version than a Gold version already, simply
because there is more Green OA than Gold OA (try a Google Scholar
search) -- and, more important, that once Green OA is universally
mandated, all articles will have a Green OA version.
The only time being lost is in getting the remaining non-OA articles
to be made OA, and the solution for that is Green OA mandates.
> and full rights of re-use by anybody, with the cc-licence they attach to the articles they publish. The latter is not the case for most 'green-only' articles.
And what researchers need the most -- and most urgently -- today is
access to all published research, today. The "re-use" rights -- far,
far less important and urgent -- can come later, once Green OA has
prevailed and journals convert to Gold OA (and authors convert to CC
licenses). Re-use rights are certainly not something we should wait
for the remaining 90% of journals to get 'round to providing today,
while we don't even have access!
> Arguably, the 'gold' OA publishers have also prepared the political ground for mandates. BMC, for instance, has initiated the discussions with Members of Parliament in the UK that led to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into OA. PLoS has done similar and effective lobbying.
Gold OA publishers have been a mixed blessing. Yes, they have raised
the profile of OA itself. And some have given support to Green OA
mandates (for which we are all very grateful).
But just as often they have implied that OA is really just Gold OA,
and that Green OA is inferior, less desirable, etc. (just as you have
done again here, Jan), thereby taking away with one hand what they
have given with the other.
The basic practical point is this: For the research community itself
(researchers, their institutions and their funders), the scope for
rapid immediate growth via Green OA self-archiving is incomparably
greater, today, than via Gold OA publishing because (1) Green OA
self-archiving is entirely within the research community's own hands,
(2) it can be universally mandated, and (3) it is free.
Gold OA is in the hands of publishers to offer and (for the top
journals) it costs extra money (at a time when the available money is
still tied up in subscriptions).
So Green OA needs to come first.
That's why we compare Green and Gold OA: To show that Green OA is
growing faster -- and especially when it is mandated.
As to the initiative of BMC in launching the UK Parliamentary Science
and Technology Select Committee's inquiry and report, please note that
the original UK call for evidence -- no doubt influenced by BMC -- was
virtually entirely based on OA as meaning Gold OA.
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm
It was only after the Committee, in its wisdom, having examined the
subsequent written and oral evidence, drew its conclusions that the
outcome became the historic one that it was, namely, the
recommendation to mandate Green OA:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm
-- later implemented by all the UK Research councils, many UK
universities, and now a growing number of funders and universities
worldwide.
> The publicity and discussion generated by the actions of OA publishers have spurred many advocates on to make the case for OA and put OA high on the agenda of the publishing and library world.
Yes, but as noted, Gold OA publicity tends to be for Gold OA, not
Green OA, and it sometimes even deprecates Green OA as not being
"full" OA (as you have done in the past, Jan), instead of stressing
Green OA as the first priority that it in reality is, with the power
to reach 100% virtually overnight via mandates.
> Mandates also stimulate submissions to OA journals.
That may be true, and that's fine, but it is a very weak side-effect,
according to our data. What mandates mostly stimulate is OA for the
submissions in *all* journals, most of which are not OA.
> To be honest, I am somewhat uncomfortable with mandates. I dislike impositions of any sort (though legalistic impositions are worse than 'soft' impositions by peers).
Fortunately, the "imposition" of mandates is on researchers, not on
publishers. But are publishers really that unfond of mandates? Where
would they be without academia's "publish or perish" mandate?
> But I accept that they are a fact of life, and I can live with the argument that the greater good of OA makes mandates a necessary evil.
Perhaps it will sweeten the medicine if you realize that, with a
little patience, universal Green OA will eventually lead to the Gold
OA era.
As shown in Alma Swan's international, cross-disciplinary surveys,
unlike you, Jan, researchers do not consider mandates an "evil": Over
80% report that they would comply *willingly* if their institutions or
funders mandated Green OA self-archiving.
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/
> It is important that OA succeeds, and that it scales sustainably. The things I find disagreeable in what I read on this OA discussion list are the idea that 'green' *must* come first, and then, maybe, 'gold'
Perhaps that is because you are not following the evidence and the
reasons, but following only your own (quite natural) disposition to
see OA as purely a publishing matter rather than a research access
matter.
As to sustainability: Subscription publishing is sustaining itself
quite comfortably today: It is research access that is deficient, for
those whose institutions cannot afford subscription (no institution
can subscribe to all, most, or even many journals, owing in part to
the high cost of subscriptions).
So worry more about sustaining research needs for now, and worry about
sustaining publisher needs if and when Green OA makes subscriptions
unsustainable. That is when they will convert to Gold OA, and the
institutions' subscription-cancellation money will become available to
pay for it!
> and the implicit (sometimes explicit) dismissal of the very constructive role that OA publishers have played and are still playing in bringing about OA.
The demonstration that Gold OA publishing was viable was welcome.
So was the promotion of OA by Gold OA publishers (apart from the
deprecation of Green OA).
So are the Gold OA articles being published today.
And so was the support (some) Gold OA publishers gave to Green OA mandates.
But (i) the promotion of OA as being synonymous with Gold OA, (ii) the
deprecation of Green OA as less than "full OA," or not OA at all and
(iii) the deprecation of Green OA mandates is not welcome or helpful
at all, to the growth of OA (sic).
Not until the proponents of Gold OA publishing realize (and
accordingly describe and promote) the need to mandate Green OA
self-archiving first, before everything else, will they really be
serving the immediate and urgent interests of OA (and research).
> My, admittedly provocative, remark that “publishers (the 'gold' road) have actually done more to bring OA about than repositories, even where mandated (the 'green' road)” should be seen in that light. My 'hunch' is, by the way, not yet falsified in my view by looking just at the universe of ISI impact factored material.
My own hunch is that your "hunch" cannot be falsified, because it is
not really about objective facts (how many articles are Green OA and
how many are Gold OA).
You may not have noticed, but in Bjork et al's article, even when they
enlarged their sample to include non-ISI journals, there was still
more Green OA than Gold OA. But even those differences were completely
eclipsed by our own data on mandated Green/Gold differences with
mandated OA versus unmandated Green OA, which is what your "hunch"
specifically singled out ("even where mandated (the 'green' road)")...
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/760-Testing-Jan-Velterops-Hunch-About-Green-and-Gold-Open-Access.html
> I wonder if the case for mandates really needs the "green' is better than 'gold" argument anyway. The case for mandates is strong enough if it focusses just on the benefits of OA. Possibly even stronger.
The reason mandates definitely need the evidence and reasons for
"Green first" (not "green better") is that otherwise institutions will
think they are doing what needs to be done for OA today by
recommending or paying pre-emptively for Gold OA publishing for a
fragment of their research output, rather than first mandating Green
OA for all of it, for free.
On Not Putting The Gold OA-Payment Cart Before The Green OA-Provision Horse
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/630-guid.html
The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide
Green Open Access Now
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/708-guid.html
Springer's Already on the Side of the Angels: What's the Big Deal?
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/703-guid.html
Never Pay Pre-Emptively For Gold OA Before First Mandating Green OA
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/714-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
> Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Yassine Gargouri yassinegargouri -- hotmail.com
> Date: Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM
> To: SIGMETRICS -- listserv.utk.edu
>
> Jan Velterop has posted his hunch that of the overall percentage of articles
> published annually today most will prove to be articles in Gold OA journals,
> once one separates from the articles classified as self-archived Green OA
> those self-archived articles that are also published in Gold OA journals:
>
> “Is anyone… aware of credible research that shows how many articles
> (in the last 5 years, say), outside physics and the Arxiv preprint servers,
> have been made available with OA exclusively via 'green' archiving in
> repositories, and how many were made available with OA directly ('gold') by
> the publishers (author-side paid or not)?”
> “The 'gold' OA ones may of course also be available in repositories, but
> shouldn't be counted for this purpose, as their OA status is not due to them
> being 'green' OA.”
> “It is my hunch (to be verified or falsified) that publishers (the 'gold'
> road) have actually done more to bring OA about than repositories, even
> where mandated (the 'green' road).”
> J. Velterop, American Scientist Open Access Forum, 25 August 2010
> http://bit.ly/VelteropHunch
>
> The results turn out to go strongly contrary to Velterop’s hypothesis.
>
> Our ongoing project is comparing citation counts for mandated Green OA
> articles with those for non-mandated Green OA articles, all published in
> journals indexed by the Thompson/Reuters ISI database (science and
> social-science/humanities). (We use only the ISI-indexed sample because the
> citation counts for our comparisons between OA and non-OA are all derived
> from ISI.)
>
> The four mandated institutions were Southampton University (ECS), Minho,
> Queensland and CERN.
>
> Out of our total set of 11,801 mandated, self-archived OA articles, we first
> set aside all those (279) articles that had been published in Gold OA
> journals (i.e., the journals in the DOAJ-indexed subset of ISI-indexed
> journals) because we were primarily interested in testing the OA citation
> advantage, which is based on comparing the citation counts of OA articles
> versus non-OA articles published in the same journal and year. (This can
> only be done in non-OA journals, because OA journals have no non-OA
> articles.) This left only the Green OA articles published in non-Gold journals.
>
> We then extracted, as control articles for this purely Green OA subset, 10
> keyword-matched articles published in the same journal and year. The total
> number of articles in this control sample for the years 2002-2008 was 41,755
> (our preprint for PloS, Gargouri et al. 2010, covers a somewhat smaller,
> earlier period: 2002-2006, with 20,982 control articles).
>
> Next we used a robot to check what percentage of these control articles was
> OA (freely accessible on the web).
>
> Of our total set of 11,801 mandated, self-archived articles, 279 articles
> (2.4%) had been published in the 63 Gold OA journals (2.6%) among the 2,391
> journals in which the authors from our four mandated institutions had
> published in 2002-2008. Both these estimates of percent Gold OA are about
> half as big as the total 5% proportion for Gold OA journals among all
> ISI-indexed journals (active in the past 10 years). To be conservative, we
> can use the higher figure of 5% as a first estimate of the Gold OA
> contribution to total OA among all ISI-indexed journals.
>
> Now, in our sample, we find that out of the total number of articles
> published in ISI-indexed journals by authors from our four mandated
> institutions between 2002-2008 (11,801 articles), about 65.6% of them (7,736
> articles) had indeed been made Green OA through self-archiving by their
> authors, as mandated (7,457 or 63.2% Green only, and 279 or 2.4% both Green
> and Gold).
>
> In contrast, for our 42,395 keyword-matched, non-mandated control articles,
> the percentage OA was 23.4% (21.9% Green and 1.5% Gold).
>
> Björk’s et al’s (2010) corresponding figures for his ISI sample (1282
> articles for 2008 alone, calculated in 2009), was 20.6% OA (14% Green, 6.6%
> Gold).
>
> The variance is probably due to discipline blends in the samples, but
> whichever sample and figures one chooses – whether our 21.9% Green and 1.5%
> Gold or Björk’s et al’s 14% Gold and 6.6% Green, the figures fail to bear
> out Verlterop’s prediction that:
>
> “publishers (the 'gold' road) have actually done more to bring OA
> about than repositories, even where mandated (the 'green' road).”
> http://bit.ly/VelteropHunch
>
> Moreover (and this is really the most important point of all), the hunch is
> the wrongest of all precisely for where OA is mandated, for there the
> percent Green is over 60%, and headed toward 100%. That is the real power of
> Green OA mandates.
>
> Yassine Gargouri
>
> Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L.
> and Harnad, S. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases
> Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLOS ONE (under review)
> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18493/
>
> Björk B-C, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, et al. (2010) Open
> Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009. PLOS ONE 5(6):
> e11273. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 .
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Current Percentage of Green and Gold OA
> From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
> Reply-To: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
> <SIGMETRICS_at_LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
> Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:17:58 -0400
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Parts/Attachments:
> Parts/Attachments
>
> text/plain (51 lines)
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Velterop <velterop_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is anyone on this list aware of credible research that shows how many
> articles (in the last 5 years, say), outside physics and the Arxiv
> preprint servers, have been made available with OA exclusively via
> 'green' archiving in respositories, and how many were made available
> with OA directly ('gold') by the publishers (author-side paid or not)?
> The 'gold' OA ones may of course also be available in repositories, but
> shouldn't be counted for this purpose, as their OA status is not due to
> them being 'green' OA.
>
>
> The percentage of total annual journal article output that is Green OA
> has been hovering at about 15% for the past half decade at least. Here
> are figures for Green OA only, for a Thomson/Reuters ISI sample of
> 21,000 control articles. Articles in Gold OA journals were excluded
> from the count: http://bit.ly/MandVSNonMand
>
> Source: Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody,
> T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open
> Access Increases Citation Impact for Higher Quality Research. PLOS ONE
> (under review) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18493/
>
> Bo-Christer Björk's sample of 1282 Thompson/Reuters ISI articles, he
> found much the same percentage Green (14%) but he also had an estimate
> of Gold (6.6%). (Since ISI does not index all journals, Björk also
> made an estimate for a total sample of 1837 ISI + nonISI journals, and
> there the relative percentage for Gold was 8.5% and Green was 11.9%)
>
> Source: Björk B-C, Welling P, Laakso M, Majlender P, Hedlund T, et al.
> 2010 Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009.
> PLOS ONE 5(6): e11273. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011273 [Table 3]
>
>
>
> It is my hunch (to be verified or falsified) that
> publishers (the 'gold' road) have actually done more to bring OA about
> than repositories, even where mandated (the 'green' road).
>
>
> I would say that the data above pretty definitively falsify your hunch...
>
> (The 160 institutional and funder mandates so far have not made a
> detectable dent in the c. 15% figure, though this may soon change.)
>
> (Do you imagine, though, Jan, that the way most authors are complying
> with their institution's or funder's mandate to make make their
> articles OA is by publishing them in a Gold OA journal, rather than
> publishing them in whatever journal they judge appropriate, and then
> depositing the final draft in their OA IR, as the mandates state?)
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
Received on Mon Aug 30 2010 - 16:49:41 BST