Re: Wrong Advice On Open Access: History Repeating Itself

From: (wrong string) édon <>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:25:58 -0500

    [ 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. ]

That gold dust cannot accelerate through mandates is right, but it
does not get in the way of green acres.

And in the case of countries like Brazil, self-archiving the articles
published in journals the OECD ignore, neglect or simply fail to
place within their indexing tools will not make them look more
appealing to the rest of the world. Self-archiving is important.
Mandates are crucial. And working on producing ever more visible OA
journals is also, I repeat *also*, crucial.

Once again, I invite everyone to meditate the lessons of SciELO. And
I defy anyone to demonstrate that the presence of SciELO has slowed
down the move toward self-archiving in Brazil or in other countries
in latin America, or in South Africa.

Jean-Claude Guédon

PS Mandates are the result of political pressure, be it institutional
or national. Producing OA journals can also be the result of
political pressure and will (as again SciELO demonstrates).
Accelerating the production of quality OA journals that are free to
readers and to authors (i.e. fully subsidized by governments, as
scientific research is subsidized by governments) would greatly
increase the number of articles accessible and reusable to all. It is
simply part of the general political pressure in favour of Open
Access in al of its forms and shapes. Let both branches of OA
identified in BOAI flourish next to each other,, and even support
each other wherever and whenever possible.

Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 19:21 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

 On 11/10/09, Couture Marc <> wrote:


 For the two new OA journals per day in DOAJ (i.e., about 800 per
year): If, say, journals are quarterly, with about 20 articles per
issue, that's 80 x 800 = 64,000 new OA articles per year (out of a
total of perhaps 2.5 million annual articles). That's an annual
increase of 2.5% (and its growth cannot be accelerated by mandates).
Compare that to the growth
potential of a single institutional mandate (6000% in your example
below). (This why it's a pity if gold dust gets in the way green
Received on Wed Nov 11 2009 - 14:35:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:59 GMT