From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:28:49 +0100

Whenever we get issues such as these, I immediately ask myself what
the analogue situation was in the pre-open access journal world.

As far as I recall, in those far-gone days we didn't talk about
subscription journals, no author fees vs subscription journals, author
fees and then further split the second into a rainbow of author fees
(reprints), author fees (page charges), author fees (colour figure
charges).  We just called them journals.

So, I'm afraid I don't see any merit in reaching for the paint box and
starting to come up with further divisions with OA.  Green and gold
are sufficient (and even that simple distinction has caused
confusion!).

David Prosser


On 17 Apr 2013, at 21:13, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: "Beall, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:45:20 -0600

Dear Jean-Claude Guédon:

There are some, including me, who make the distinction between gold
open-access and platinum open-access.

Gold = free to reader, author pays article processing charge

Platinum = free to reader, free to author

This distinction is important and has value, I think, because it shows
two different funding models for open-access publishing. So I do
believe, as you say, that gold really means author-pay journals.
Conflating the two models under a single appellation initiates
confusion and ambiguity.

Using the more precise terminology enables clearer communication and
does not semantically lump together two things that are inherently
different.

Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor

Scholarly Initiatives Librarian
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
[log in to unmask]