Open Access Archivangelism

“... For those with patience for logic, here is how the ambiguity crept into the RCUK Open Access Policy, where it resides, and why it is all the more important to set it right promptly, before it takes root:  The RCUK fundee is actually faced with not one but two semi-independent choices to make in order to comply with the RCUK OA mandate: the between-journals choice of a suitable journal, and the within-journal choice of a suitable option.   These two semi-independent choices have been (inadvertently) conflated in the current RCUK policy draft, treating them, ambiguously, as if they were one choice.  Both choices are nominally GREEN versus GOLD choices. Let's quickly define ‘GREEN’ and ‘GOLD,’ because they mean the same in both cases. I will use a definition based on the current RCUK policy draft: GOLD means the journal makes the article OA with CC-BY (‘Libre OA’), usually for a fee.  GREEN means the author makes the article OA (‘Gratis OA’) by depositing it in a repository, and making it OA within 0-12 months of publication.  These two definitions are not what is in dispute here.  But now the GREEN versus GOLD choice applies to two different things:   (1) the author's choice of which journal is an RCUK-suitable journal to publish in (this is the between-journals choice) 

and then, if the journal offers both the GREEN and GOLD option:  (2) the author's choice of which option to pick (this is the within-journal choice).  A perfectly clear and unambiguous way to state the intended policy would be: ‘An RCUK-suitable journal is one that offers   (i) GREEN only or (ii) GOLD only or (iii) BOTH (i.e., hybrid GREEN+GOLD). An RCUK author may choose (i), (ii) or (iii). If the choice is (iii), the RCUK author may choose GREEN or GOLD.’ That would dispel all ambiguity. But what the current RCUK policy actually states instead is: ‘An RCUK-suitable journal is one that offers (i) GOLD, or, if it does not offer GOLD, then an RCUK-suitable journal is one that offers (ii) GREEN OA.’ The possibility that the journal offers (iii) both (i.e., hybrid GREEN+GOLD) is not mentioned, and the between-journals choice of journal is hence left completely conflated with the within-journal choice of option. So the conclusion the RCUK fundee draws is that GREEN can only be chosen if GOLD is not offered: ‘GREEN IF AND ONLY IF NOT GOLD.’ When a policy so fully conflates two distinct, independent choice factors, it is extremely important to disambiguate it so as to undo the conflation. Dropping the 9-word -- and completely unnecessary -- clause  ‘Where a publisher does not offer option 1 above’ [i.e., does not offer GOLD] would remove the conflation and the ambiguity.  To make this even more transparent, the statement from Peter Suber's interview with Mark Thorley could also be added: ‘Where a journal offers both suitable green (2.) and suitable gold (1.) options’ [i.e., hybrid GREEN+GOLD] , ‘the PI may choose the option he or she thinks most appropriate’ This would make it perfectly clear that if a hybrid GREEN+GOLD journal is chosen, the author is free to choose either its GREEN or GOLD option...”