From: "Beall, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:14:45 -0600

Dear Prof. Harnad:

I am delighted that you gave a positive mention to authors' choice, as
indicated by your referring to number six below as a "predictable
perverse effect" of the RCUK policy. I agree -- No one should take
away an author's freedom of journal choice.

6. abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [economic model/CC-BY
instead of quality]

However, you've been a big advocate of mandates, and these mandates
effectively remove freedom of journal-choice in many instances. I read
your recent article, "Worldwide open access: UK leadership?" and saw
that you advocate various mandates, some of which effectively abrogate
the authors' freedom of journal-choice. For example, if a journal does
not allow green OA archiving, then the author would be mandated not to
publish in it, effectively removing his "freedom of journal-choice."

I'd be interested to hear how you reconcile these contradictory views.
Why is it a flaw for the gold OA model to abrogate authors' freedom of
journal-choice but not a flaw when the green OA model does the same
thing?

Thanks,

Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor

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


From: Stevan Harnad
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:51 PM

Subject: [GOAL] Re: The UK's Open Access Policy: Controversy Continues

Yes, the Finch/RCUK policy has had its predictable perverse effects:

1. sustaining arbitrary, bloated Gold OA fees
2. wasting scarce research funds
3. double-paying publishers [subscriptions plus Gold]
4. handing subscription publishers a hybrid-gold-mine
5. enabling hybrid publishers to double-dip
6. abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [economic model/CC-BY
instead of quality]
7. imposing re-mix licenses that many authors don't want and most
users and fields don't need
8. inspiring subscription publishers to adopt and lengthen Green OA
embargoes [to maxmize hybrid-gold revenues]
9. handicapping Green OA mandates worldwide (by incentivizing embargoes)
10. allowing journal-fleet publishers to confuse and exploit
institutions and authors even more

But the solution is also there (as already adopted in Francophone
Belgium and proposed by HEFCE for REF):

a. funders and institutions mandate immediate-deposit
b. of the peer-reviewed final draft
c. in the author's institutional repository
d. immediately upon acceptance for publication
e. whether journal is subscription orGold
f. whether access to the deposit is immedate-OA or embargoed
g. whether license is transfered, retained or CC-BY;
h. institutions implement repository's facilitated email eprint request Button;
i. institutions designate immediate-deposit the mechanism for
submitting publictions for research performance assessment;
j. institutions monitor and ensure immediate-deposit mandate compliance

This policy restores author choice, moots publisher embargoes, makes
Gold and CC-BY completely optional, provides the incentive for author
compliance and the natural institutional mechanism for verifying it,
consolidates funder and institutional mandates, hsstens the natural
death of OA embargoes, the onset of universal Green OA, and the
resultant institutional subscription cancellations, journal downsizing
and transition to Fair-Gold OA at an affordable, sustainable price,
paid out of institutional subscription cancellation savings instead of
over-priced, double-paid, double-dipped Fool's-Gold. And of course
Fair-Gold OA will license all the re-use rights users need and authors
want to allow.