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