From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:01:22 +0000
> It would probably also mean that very few publications using Gold OA
> could continue to be called OA journals. Does PLoS abide by the
> Budapest definition?
Yes
> Do all the Hindawi journals?
The open access ones do
> Does any journal
> published by a university press or commercial publisher?
Yes. See, for example, BMC journals and Hindawi. In fact, the DOAJ
lists at least 800 journals that explicitly use CC-BY. Many more use
CC-BY-NC (an unnecessary addition in my view, but then I am a 'purist'
apparently!) - see Nucleic Acids Research from OUP.
> And what about the cross-subsidization of academic books that such
> revenues from journal reprints have made possible? Does Michael want
> to see fewer books published?
Is it 2004 again? Are we really suggesting that only journals that
retain copyright can return a profit/surplus? How successful does
Hindawi, BMC, PLoS have to be before we finally accept that you can
make money publishing under a CC-BY regime?
David
On 23 Dec 2011, at 03:49, LIBLICENSE wrote:
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:11:20 -0600
>
>
> Michael is entitled to stipulate what OA should mean, and it is true
> that various "declarations" (Budapest, Berlin, etc.) support this
> recommendation. But is this a really useful approach for the OA
> movement to take?
>
> It would mean, for example, that many of the entries in the DOAJ would
> have to be removed. As it is, does the DOAJ carry any annotations as
> to whether a journal operate as OA libre or OA gratis?
>
> It would probably also mean that very few publications using Gold OA
> could continue to be called OA journals. Does PLoS abide by the
> Budapest definition? Do all the Hindawi journals? Does any journal
> published by a university press or commercial publisher?
>
> It would almost surely mean that we could not apply OA to ANY book
> publishing operations, such as the National Academies Press, OECD,
> Penn State's Romance Studies series, Michigan's program, Bloomsbury
> Academic, the OPEN program of European university presses, etc. Under
> current conditions, the only way any book publisher is likely to
> succeed in doing OA publishing is if it is OA gratis, not libre. It
> would be economic suicide for these publishers to allow any vendor
> whatsoever to be "free riders" and to provide POD services when those
> vendors have contributed nothing to the cost of producing the books.
>
> And what about the authors? Do Michael and his fellow purists want to
> deny those authors who have made literally thousands of dollars off of
> republication of their articles in commercial anthologies or online
> collections the benefits of their success? (I can cite several
> authors of articles published in Penn State Press journals who made
> very handsome profits from their academic writings in this way.)
>
> And what about the cross-subsidization of academic books that such
> revenues from journal reprints have made possible? Does Michael want
> to see fewer books published?
>
> There is a cost to being a purist about OA. I do agree with Michael,
> though, about transparency: if a publisher is making a lot of money
> off of commercial reuses of works, then it should factor that revenue
> into what is being charged to authors for getting their articles
> published.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>> From: Michael Carroll <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:39:25 -0500
>>
>>
>> Whoa, foul Joe. My post does not demand that the term "open access"
>> as a whole be limited to the gold road, and no fair reading of this
>> post or of my many other writings on the topic would support this
>> interpretation.
>>
>> My point is limited to those publishers who have switched their
>> funding model to the supply side (so called "author pays") and who
>> signal this switch with the term "open access publication" or label
>> themselves as "open access publishers".
>>
>> Authors deserve clear labeling so that they know what they are paying
>> for. My argument, and the position of OASPA and others, is that the
>> term "open access publication" should be limited to those journals
>> that grant the author immediate publication and grants the reading
>> public the full suite of reuse rights subject only to the attribution
>> requirement. The argument is elaborated in the PLoS Biology article
>> linked in the initial post, but the bottom line is that publishers who
>> are double dipping behind the "open access publication" label are not
>> being straight with authors.
>>
>> If their argument is that they're using a hybrid funding model, then
>> they should use a term other than "open access publication" to signal
>> to authors that they are not selling full open access as an option. I
>> propose "pseudo open access", as in real fake leather, but if that's
>> too provocative, I can go along with "limited access" as a more
>> neutral description.
>>
>> Best,
>> Mike
>>
>> Michael W. Carroll
>> Professor of Law and Director,
>> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
>> American University, Washington College of Law
>> Washington, D.C. 20016
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of LIBLICENSE
>> Sent: Tue 12/20/2011 11:39 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program
>>
>> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:42:57 -0800
>>
>> Taylor & Francis's program is open access. Michael Carroll's
>> insistence that OA has a special and narrow meaning is one we have
>> heard on this list many times. But OA has many meanings. Advocates of
>> a special kind of OA could have prevented these multiple meanings from
>> arising had they trademarked a term for the variety they prefer.
>>
>> In my view, OA means free to read for the end-user. All the other
>> stipulations are extraneous.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
|
