There is no need for any further colors! An OA journal ("gold")
is any journal that makes its full-text contents accessible free
online immediately, permanently. It is not part of the (BOAI/DOAJ)
definition of an OA journal how it covers its costs! That could be
via the author/institution publication fee or it could continue to be
via subscription tolls or via any other variant cost-recovery means,
as long as the online version is accessible free.
So please let as not clutter the skies with any needless color distinctions
when the very purpose of the color-coding was to clarify, not to confuse:
GOLD: If a journal makes its own online version OA, it is an OA journal
(gold).
GREEN: If a journal does not make its own online version OA but it gives
its authors the green light to self-archive their own version,
it is green (preprint = pale-green, postprint = green).
GRAY: Otherwise, it is gray (and that includes any delay/embargo
restriction on self-archiving and any optional-OA journal that offers
its authors the option of paying to have their article made OA but does
not give its official green light to self-archiving).
That is all the color code that is needed. It will not help if
everyone's favorite conjecture about hypothetical cost-recovery models
or hypothetical publishing reform models -- or every publisher's
arbitrary detail about the self-archiving (PDF+/PDF-, link+/link-,
website/home-page/institutional-server, etc. etc.) -- is canonized with
a color of its own.
The objective of the color codes was to make the concrete, tested OA
alternatives (gold and green) clearly visible -- and to encourage
authors, their institutions and their funders to act accordingly. It is
not an exercise in technicolor taxonomy.
Stevan Harnad
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 brs4 at lehigh.edu wrote:
>> The typology of green vs. gold does not exhaust the open access categories. We
> need a third category, "subscription OA", applicable (as mentioned) not
> only to
> ejournals, but other document types (e.g., ency. resources).
>> I've been trying to argue that the rubric subscription OA, while seemingly
> self-contradictory (though not actually), points to some live examples in the
> realm of electronic journals.
>> So that the category does not get lost in the wash, should we call
> subscription
> OA/subscription overlay ejournals: silver?
>> This would be a way to concretize the idea, one of the nice features of the
> typology of green vs. gold.
>> Then the question becomes: how do we regard silver ejournals? Are they
> indexed,
> on DOAJ? (No time to check right now.) Would their exclusion on a listing
> of OA
> journals be unduly restrictive?
>> Brian Simboli
>> P.S. Well, I was going to beg off much by way of soaf listserv contributions,
> but it looks as if the silver model is presenting all kinds of questions,
> perhaps worth broaching.
>>>>>>>>> Quoting David Goodman <David.Goodman at liu.edu>:
>> >
> > Sally, the hard part is what you have omitted: finding the oa journals that
> > are
> > not listed in DOAJ, as we know, estimates vary from 10% more to double.
> >
> > Dr. David Goodman
> > Associate Professor
> > Palmer School of Library and Information Science
> > Long Island University
> > dgoodman at liu.edu>>> ==========
>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> The SPARC Open Access Forum.
> To post, send your message to <SPARC-OAForum at arl.org>.
> To unsubscribe, email to <SPARC-OAForum-off at arl.org>.
> To switch to digest mode, email to <SPARC-OAForum-digest at arl.org>.
> To switch to index mode, email to <SPARC-OAForum-index at arl.org>.
> Send administrative queries to <SPARC-OAForum-request at arl.org>.
>
