Re: Mandated vs Voluntary Open Access: Comparing Green and Gold

From: Velterop <velterop_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:18:21 +0100

[snip]

[JV:] To be honest, I am somewhat uncomfortable with mandates. I dislike imposit
ions of any sort (though legalistic impositions are worse than 'soft' imposition
s by peers).
    

[SH:] 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?

  

Sure. Of course the imposition is on researchers and not on publishers. When I
said I was somewhat uncomfortable with impositions, I was talking about
impositions, not publishers. Any impositions. And 'soft' peer impositions, of
the kind of "publish or perish"are just not as unpalatable as legalistic ones
(whether on researchers or anybody else). But especially OA publishers, I
imagine, are not unhappy with the OA mandates. Other publishers I wouldn't be
too sure about, or know about, frankly. It's been more than a decade since I was
a non-OA publisher, and now I'm not even an OA publisher any longer.

Where would publishers be without academia's "publish or perish" mores? They
evidently wouldn't exist in the form they do now. But it's not their doing that
"publish or perish" exists. They only responded to a need by providing a
service. And that's what OA publishers are doing, too. The fact that you do not
see the need for 'gold' OA publishing doesn't mean that they don't. Time will
tell who has been the most perspicacious.

Otherwise, this discussion is closed, at least as far as I am concerned.

Jan Velterop
Received on Mon Aug 30 2010 - 19:02:19 BST