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