From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 15:37:47 -0700

My opinion is that Green OA makes less sense since the paper that did
not pass peer review & has lower value.  It is just a private opinion.

After a peer review it acquires value but of what type?  I will
describe one situation.  The peer reviewers could point out to the
errors in computations though the approach overall might have been
recognized as valid.

I would rather correct any errors and allow the corrected paper to
appear in the journal first - for general benefit. If I am not
mistaken, this was a similar situation with Crick and Watson that led
to Nobel Prize in Biology.

Ari Belenkiy


On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:07 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Frederick Friend <[log in to unmask]>
>  Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:55:18 +0100
>
> Jan,
>
> I cannot speak for Stevan Harnad, but the problem many of us have with
> the Finch Report is not that "they see the gold route as worthy of
> support as well" but that it unfairly rubbishes the green route and -
> in giving priority to gold - does not maintain the balance between
> green and gold to which you and I signed up in BOAI.
>
> Fred Friend
> http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:08:26 +0200
>
> It should be abundantly clear that Open Access policies by Finch,
> RCUK, Wellcome Trust and many others are very important for the
> development of universal OA, in that they not only indicate practical
> ways of achieving it, but also signal to the scholarly community and
> the wider society interested in scientific knowledge and its advance
> that OA should be the norm.
>
> The 'sin' that RCUK, Finch and the Wellcome Trust committed is that
> they didn't formulate their policies according to strict Harnadian
> orthodoxy. It's not that they forbid Harnadian OA (a.k.a. 'green'). It
> is that they see the 'gold' route to OA as worthy of support as well.
> Harnad, as arbiter of Harnadian OA (he has acolytes), would like to
> see funder and institutional OA policies focus entirely and only on
> Harnadian OA, and would want them, to all intents and purposed, forbid
> the 'gold' route. In this view, the 'gold' route comes into play (as
> 'downsized gold', whatever that means) only once all scholarly journal
> literature is OA according to Harnadian rules. These rules are quite
> specific: a) articles must be published in peer-reviewed subscription
> journals; b) institutions must mandate their subsequent deposit in an
> institutional repository (not, for instance in a global subject
> repository); c) there must be no insistence on OA immediately upon
> publication (his big idea is ID/OA — Institutional Deposit / Optional
> [sic] Access); d) there must be no insistence on CC-BY or equivalent
> (which would make re-use and text-mining possible — OA in this view
> should just be ocular access, not machine-access).
>
> It must be difficult to comply with these rules, and seeing his recent
> applause, subsequently followed by withdrawal of support, for the RCUK
> policy, even Harnad himself finds it difficult to assess whether the
> rules are 'properly' adhered to. It also seems as if his main focus is
> not OA but mandated deposit in institutional repositories. Probably
> hoping that that will eventually lead to OA. He would like to see
> 'gold' OA — OA at source — considered only if and when it is
> "downsized Gold OA, once Green OA has prevailed globally, making
> subscriptions unsustainable and forcing journals to downsize." It is
> the equivalent of opening the parachute only a split second before
> hitting the ground. It would be the triumph of a dogmatically serial
> process over a pragmatically parallel one. The triumph of cloud cuckoo
> land over reality.
>
> Open Access is more than worth having. Different, complementary, ways
> help achieve it. There are many roads leading to Rome.
>
> Jan Velterop
> OA advocate