From: "Beall, Jeffrey" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 11:14:45 -0600 Dear Prof. Harnad: I am delighted that you gave a positive mention to authors' choice, as indicated by your referring to number six below as a "predictable perverse effect" of the RCUK policy. I agree -- No one should take away an author's freedom of journal choice. 6. abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [economic model/CC-BY instead of quality] However, you've been a big advocate of mandates, and these mandates effectively remove freedom of journal-choice in many instances. I read your recent article, "Worldwide open access: UK leadership?" and saw that you advocate various mandates, some of which effectively abrogate the authors' freedom of journal-choice. For example, if a journal does not allow green OA archiving, then the author would be mandated not to publish in it, effectively removing his "freedom of journal-choice." I'd be interested to hear how you reconcile these contradictory views. Why is it a flaw for the gold OA model to abrogate authors' freedom of journal-choice but not a flaw when the green OA model does the same thing? Thanks, Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor Scholarly Initiatives Librarian Auraria Library University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colo. 80204 USA [log in to unmask] From: Stevan Harnad Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:51 PM Subject: [GOAL] Re: The UK's Open Access Policy: Controversy Continues Yes, the Finch/RCUK policy has had its predictable perverse effects: 1. sustaining arbitrary, bloated Gold OA fees 2. wasting scarce research funds 3. double-paying publishers [subscriptions plus Gold] 4. handing subscription publishers a hybrid-gold-mine 5. enabling hybrid publishers to double-dip 6. abrogating authors' freedom of journal-choice [economic model/CC-BY instead of quality] 7. imposing re-mix licenses that many authors don't want and most users and fields don't need 8. inspiring subscription publishers to adopt and lengthen Green OA embargoes [to maxmize hybrid-gold revenues] 9. handicapping Green OA mandates worldwide (by incentivizing embargoes) 10. allowing journal-fleet publishers to confuse and exploit institutions and authors even more But the solution is also there (as already adopted in Francophone Belgium and proposed by HEFCE for REF): a. funders and institutions mandate immediate-deposit b. of the peer-reviewed final draft c. in the author's institutional repository d. immediately upon acceptance for publication e. whether journal is subscription orGold f. whether access to the deposit is immedate-OA or embargoed g. whether license is transfered, retained or CC-BY; h. institutions implement repository's facilitated email eprint request Button; i. institutions designate immediate-deposit the mechanism for submitting publictions for research performance assessment; j. institutions monitor and ensure immediate-deposit mandate compliance This policy restores author choice, moots publisher embargoes, makes Gold and CC-BY completely optional, provides the incentive for author compliance and the natural institutional mechanism for verifying it, consolidates funder and institutional mandates, hsstens the natural death of OA embargoes, the onset of universal Green OA, and the resultant institutional subscription cancellations, journal downsizing and transition to Fair-Gold OA at an affordable, sustainable price, paid out of institutional subscription cancellation savings instead of over-priced, double-paid, double-dipped Fool's-Gold. And of course Fair-Gold OA will license all the re-use rights users need and authors want to allow.