From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:28:49 +0100 Whenever we get issues such as these, I immediately ask myself what the analogue situation was in the pre-open access journal world. As far as I recall, in those far-gone days we didn't talk about subscription journals, no author fees vs subscription journals, author fees and then further split the second into a rainbow of author fees (reprints), author fees (page charges), author fees (colour figure charges). We just called them journals. So, I'm afraid I don't see any merit in reaching for the paint box and starting to come up with further divisions with OA. Green and gold are sufficient (and even that simple distinction has caused confusion!). David Prosser On 17 Apr 2013, at 21:13, LIBLICENSE wrote: From: "Beall, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:45:20 -0600 Dear Jean-Claude Guédon: There are some, including me, who make the distinction between gold open-access and platinum open-access. Gold = free to reader, author pays article processing charge Platinum = free to reader, free to author This distinction is important and has value, I think, because it shows two different funding models for open-access publishing. So I do believe, as you say, that gold really means author-pay journals. Conflating the two models under a single appellation initiates confusion and ambiguity. Using the more precise terminology enables clearer communication and does not semantically lump together two things that are inherently different. Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor Scholarly Initiatives Librarian Auraria Library University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colo. 80204 USA [log in to unmask]