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