Re: Green Party Green on Gold but not on Green

From: (wrong string) édon <>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:11:41 -0400

    [ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

I will not comment on the contradiction inherent in the two following
excerpts of Stevan's posting except to say that I find them quite

             1. The publisher lobby (ALPSP and STM) is arguing for
                further delay in implementing this "green" policy;
             2. it is the *authors* who are the OA retardant, not the

What I would really want to do is come back to the first paragraph of
the text below.

Stevan claims that one cannot impose a business model to publishers. My
answer, and we should consider it very carefully, is that if a journal
is run with money that is public money, be it directly from the
government or through some agency distributing public money - this
includes universities and their support in kind for many journals, as
this is ultimately paid up by public money - then we should seek to have
open access mandated. There is no reason that public money supporting
the publishing of scholarly journals should then be the condition of
possibility (as French philosophers are wont to say...) for toll-gated
research results, all the more so that the research itself is also
supported by public money.

In conclusion, some form of mandating can be applied to both green and
gold; in the latter case, it would apply only to journals receiving any
form of public support. When you pay part of the bill, you are entitled
to having a say in the design of the business model. Scholarly journals
with public support should be forced to be OA. Let them design their
individual business model within that framework. Period!

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le samedi 10 septembre 2005 à 12:24 +0100, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> In their press release
> the UK Green Party announces that it will vote (among other things) to
> "require Open Access [OA] publishing for publicly-funded academies."
> Since one cannot impose a business model, but only encourage it, and try to
> create conditions favorable to it, this vote to *require* OA publishing (the
> "golden" road to OA) is at best only a symbolic token and at worst quixotic.
> It is also ironic that the Green party makes no mention of support for
> the "green" road to OA, which is OA self-archiving, by their own authors,
> of all articles published in non-OA (and OA) journals. This, unlike OA
> publishing itself, (1) *can* be required, (2) has been recommended as a
> UK policy by the UK Select Committee on Science and Technology (but not
> implemented by the government), (3) is now the proposed policy of the UK
> research funding councils, RCUK (Research Councils UK), with a projected
> implementation date of October 2005 if adopted, (4) would result
> in 100% OA for all UK research output, and (5) would serve as a model for
> the greening of the rest of the research world, as advocated by (6) the
> Berlin Declaration on Open Access and the Budapest Open Access Initiative.
> The publisher lobby (ALPSP and STM) is arguing for further delay in
> implementing this "green" policy on the grounds that (i) it may damage
> their revenues and (ii) it is an attempt to impose a change in business
> model on them. All objective evidence is contrary to (i); and (ii) is
> incorrect (gold is a business model, for publishers; green is merely a
> condition on receiving funding, for researchers).
> Over 90% of journals are already green on author self-archiving; it is
> the *authors* who are the OA retardant, not the publishers: only 15% of
> authors have so far bothered to go even though the light is green. That
> is what the RCUK green policy is intended to remedy. It would be both
> foolish and churlish to try instead to force the *journals* to take that
> further step on behalf of the sluggish authors, by going gold, with all
> the risk and sacrifice accruing to the publishers and all the benefits
> accruing to the authors.
> The Green Party should be voting to "require OA self-archiving for
> [authors employed by] publicly-funded academies" -- an implementable
> green policy that will swiftly and certainly generate 100% OA -- rather
> than tilting (out of "gold fever") at imposed business models that will
> only lead to years more of delay and needless wrangling, meanwhile failing
> to achieve the desired and reachable immediate result.
> Stevan Harnad
Dr. Jean-Claude Guédon
Dept. of Comparative Literature
University of Montreal
PO Box 6128, Downtown Branch
Montreal, QC H3C 3J7
    [ Part 2, "This is a digitally signed message part"  ]
    [ Application/PGP-SIGNATURE  196bytes. ]
    [ Unable to print this part. ]
Received on Sat Sep 10 2005 - 15:35:41 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:00 GMT