In Open Access News, Peter Suber wrote:
> I applaud Cambridge's decision to continue to allow immediate OA
> archiving of peer-reviewed author manuscripts, even when authors
> choose not to participate in Cambridge Open. That's a step most of
> the other OA hybrid programs have been unwilling to take.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_08_06_fosblogarchive.html#115541257244113445
Actually, Cambridge University Press's commendable Open Access Policy:
(1) Green on PREPRINT self-archiving
(2) Green on immediate, unembargoed POSTPRINT self-archiving
*and*
(3) Hybrid Gold (Cambridge Open Option)
is optimal, but CUP, now offering Open Option (for 15 of its 186 journals)
is not alone or in the minority among Green Publishers! For example,
Springer's Open Choice covers Springer's 502 Journals and (I believe)
Kluwer's 837 journals, and these journals are all solid GREEN.
I will provide the figures in terms of number and percentage of journals
rather than in terms of number and percentage of publishers (because some
publishers publish 1000+ journals and some publish only one!). (The
primary data are from SHERPA-Romeo http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php ;
they are recoded at EPrint-Romeo http://romeo.eprints.org/ ):
GREEN journals (6458/9214) (70%):
Endorse POSTPRINT (G) or both POSTPRINT and PREPRINT (Gg) self-archiving
PALE-GREEN journals (2113/9214) (23%):
Endorse PREPRINT (g) self-archiving only.
GRAY journals (627/9214) (7%):
Endorse neither PREPRINT nor POSTPRINT (X) self-archiving
The embargoes (1864/9214) (20%) are, as you would expect, and almost
by definition, mostly among the PALE-GREEN journals, who only endorse
PREPRINT (g) self-archiving:
GREEN (Gg + G) journal embargoes: 27/6458 = <1%
PALE-GREEN (g) journal embargoes: 1821/2113 = 86%
GRAY (X) journal embargoes: 16/627 = 3%
Note that the right way to interpret this is that the endorsement of delayed
self-archiving is an *advance* over no endorsement of self-archiving at all.
So the 14% of PALE-GREEN (g) journals who don't endorse at least delayed
postprint self-archiving are in fact *less* progressive than the 86%
that do endorse postprint self-archiving after a delay.
And of course the 3% of GRAY journals that endorse delayed self-archiving
are at least a smidgen more progressive than those who don't endorse
self-archiving at all (though two of these -- the Modern Humanities
Research Association journals with a 24-month embargo and the 6 Inter
Research journals with a *48-month* embargo are a bit of a joke!).
A few updates have to be done, however, in both SHERPA-Romeo and
EPrints-Romeo, to downgrade the 27 (1%) of the 6458 GREEN (G) journals to
GRAY (X), because embargoed self-archiving is definitely *not* Green.
Data details, including the minor re-classifications that are
needed, appear below.
Stevan Harnad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Psychological Society 12 (3, GREEN-Gg) G-->g
Royal College of Psychiatrists 12 (5 GREEN-G) 5G-->X
**Royal Statistical Society 12 (3 GREEN-X) 3G-->X
Society for Endocrinology 12 (3 GREEN-X) 3G-->X
*Inter Research 48! (6, GREEN-X) 6G-->X
Modern Humanities Research Association 24! (6, GREEN-X) 6G-->X
Total 9339 --> 9197 --> 9214
GREEN (G or Gg)6483 69% --> 70% (+1)--> 6484 70% -3 -23 --> 6458 70%
PALE-GREEN (g) 2248 24% (-138) = 2110 --> 23% +3 --> 2113 --> 23%
GRAY 604 7% (+16)--> 620 7% +23 --> 627 7%
Embargoes Total: 1864/9214 = 20%
Gg 3
G 1 5 3 3 6 6 = 24 >1%
g 1 698 1 47 188 50 9 56 771 = 1821 86%
X 16 3%
Association of Applied Biologists 12 (1, PALE-GREEN)
Blackwell 6/12 (698, PALE-GREEN)
Nature Publishing Group 6 (47, PALE-GREEN)
Oxford 12/24 (188 PALE-GREEN)
University of Chicago Press (some) (50, PALE-GREEN)
Yale Law School 12 (9, PALE-GREEN)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press 12 (56, PALE-GREEN)
Taylor & Francis 12/18 (909 -138 = 771 PALE-GREEN: double-counts!)
83 Dekker, 27 Psychology Press, 28, CRC Press
***University of Texas Press (some) (not yet listed) (16, GRAY)
****Biophysical Society ? (1, GREEN) (not yet listed)
|
