From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:34:28 -0400

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 on Liblicense, LIBLICENSE Ari Belenkiy wrote:

> First, by definition, the Green OA is "a deposit of PRE-peer-reviewed article on author's website".

Incorrect. By definition Green OA is immediate, permanent toll-free
online access to the post-peer-reviewed "postprint", provided by the
author (on any website, institutional or central).

> The only way publishers can agree on this is for a back payment - this appears to be made by institutions and not by the authors (a version of the Gold OA).

Nothing of the sort. The majority of journals endorse immediate,
unembargoed Green OA.

A minority want a 1-year embargo.

The solution is to mandate immediate deposit of all articles; authors
can then provide immediate Green OA for the majority, and
Button-mediated "Almost OA" during the embargo for the embargoed
minority.

No payment for any of this. Publication is already paid for via
subscriptions, for subscription journals. And Gold OA payments have
nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.

> Am I right? Then who in the institution will decide for which submission to pay and for which not?

You are wrong. You are conflating preprint and postprint, Green OA and
Gold OA. I suggest doing a little background reading on basic concepts
and developments in OA. There's not much, and you will understand it
quickly once you read about it. But just going by the words in
postings, and their free associations with what one thinks they might
mean will not get one anywhere. You might start with the
self-archiving FAQ.

Stevan Harnad

> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:09 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:42:59 -0400
> >
> > >On 2013-08-11, Ari Belenkiy, SFU <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Why will publishers agree to this scheme?
> >
> > Peer-review is the most important service they provide ... for nothing?
> >
> > (1) Publishers today are paid for (managing) peer review -- paid in
> > full, many times over -- by institutional subscriptions.
> >
> > (2) The majority of journals today already agree to immediate,
> > unembargoed Green OA self-archiving of the author's peer-reviewed
> > final draft.
> >
> > (3) For the minority of journals that embargo OA, there is the
> > immediate-deposit (ID/OA) mandate - mandatory deposit in the author's
> > institutional repository immediately upon acceptance whether or not
> > access to the deposit is immediately set as OA -- plus the
> > repository's eprint-request Button to tide over user access needs with
> > one click from the requestor and one click from the author
> > ("Almost-OA") for those deposits to which access has been set as
> > Closed Access, to comply with a publisher OA embargo.
> >
> > Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Gold OA
> > Publishing are premature.
> >
> > Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top
> > journals) are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds
> > to pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still high
> > ("Fools-Gold"); and there is concern that paying to publish may
> > inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards.
> >
> > What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate
> > immediate-deposit (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately
> > upon acceptance for publication). (U of C should add such an
> > immediate-deposit clause -- with no opt-out -- to its new Green OA
> > mandate.)
> >
> > This will provide immediate Green OA for all unembargoed deposits +
> > immediate Almost-OA for all embargoed deposits.
> >
> > Then, if and when universal Green OA should go on to make
> > subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the
> > Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print
>>  edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving), downsize to just
> > managing the service of peer review, and convert to the Gold OA
> > cost-recovery model.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have released the funds
> > to pay these residual service costs (for affordable, sustainable
> > post-Green Fair-Gold OA).
> >
> > The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be
> > on a "no-fault basis," with the author's institution or funder paying
> > for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance,
> > revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while
> > protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in
> > peer-review quality standards.
> >
> > Stevan Harnad