Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates

From: Jean-Claude Guedon <>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:24:59 EDT

I fully agree with Stevan Harnad on the point below. Granting=20
agencies only have to mandate self-archiving. Period.

I remember too well the satisfied laughter of Derk Haank in=20
Frankfurt, over a year ago, when he announced with a visible=20
degree of glee that he enjoyed seeing new revenue streams coming=20
out of the granting agencies. He was thinking about "open choice"=20
then. Now, Elsevier increases the new revenue streams by taxing=20
granting agencies for the right to archive.

Granting agencies might consider using their money either for=20
research itself or, where no prominent green journals exist, to=20
help create competing gold journals.

Jean-Claude Guedon

These sums of money ought to support research

Le lundi 12 mars 2007 =C3=A0 21:55 -0400, Stevan Harnad a ecrit:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Jan Velterop wrote:
>> The Howard Hughes deal is *not* a setback for open access, even
>> if it is not the greatest imaginable step forwards perhaps.
> It is not a setback for the minuscule number of articles for
> which HHMI will finance paid (Gold) OA. It is a setback for all
> the other articles that could be made (Green) OA through mandated
> author self-archiving, for free, while subscriptions are still
> continuing to pay the publication costs.
> It is not only a waste of money, but it plays into the hands of
> those who are trying to delay or derail Green self-archiving
> mandates at all costs.
>> To knock the HHMI for getting into this deal is short-sighted.
> It is HHMI that is being short-sighted (and gullible). HHMI=20
> ought instead simply to mandate Green OA self-archiving, and=20
> leave it at that.

Received on Wed Mar 14 2007 - 10:33:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:49 GMT