RE: Another Winning Article From OA's Chronicler

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Sorry, Richard Poynder makes a fundamental error in his taxonomy 
of Green and Gold OA.  He defines the OA universe narrowly, finds 
some narrow examples, then proclaims that small cabin the Empire 
of All Things.

The real thrust of the world of open access is neither green nor 
gold, but what I have termed "unwashed," that is, the vast and 
growing--and growing and growing and growing--world of material 
that is not peer-reviewed.  Take Poynder's own article, for 
example, or posts to this list.  Look at the material that is 
accumulating in IRs, arXiv, and elsewhere; think about all the 
blogs and Twitter feeds.

The evidence is mounting that many advocates of open access have 
never actually used the Internet.  The myth persists that OA 
publishing is just like traditional publishing except that it is 
free to the user.  While there are some segments of OA that are 
just that, it is a shrinking part of the open access material 
that is being generated.  And it is minuscule compared to what we 
will see in the years to come.

This doesn't mean peer review is going away.  It simply means 
that peer review is evolving to conform to the characteristics of 
the online medium, just as the novel grew with the printed page 
and tennis is a game played around a net.  Increasingly peer 
review will be post-publication, not pre-publication.  I suspect 
all this talk about Gold and Green is a waste of everybody's 
time.

Joe Esposito


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 2:51 PM
To: Lib Serials list; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Another Winning Article From OA's Chronicler and Conscience:
Richard Poynder

I don't know how he does it. His article <http://poynder.blogspot.com/> is
full of points with which I profoundly disagree. But he has written it so
fairly and so insightfully and so stimulatingly that all one can do is
admire it, and him, yet again.

I may be writing a critical commentary shortly, but in the meantime, all I
can do is highly recommend it to everyone with any interest in the exciting
current developments in Open Access (OA). It will bring you up to speed with
the OA movement and also give you a shrewd and penetrating peek at OA's
possible future.

Agree or disagree, you cannot fail to be informed, and impressed.
The OA movement is fortunate indeed to have Richard Poynder as its
chronicler, conscience, and gadfly laureate.

Stevan Harnad <http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/>
American Scientist Open Access
Forum<http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-F
orum.html>