Green open-access does NOT mean delayed or non-commercial | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

ab1630's bookmarks 2018-02-15


"Open-access journalist Richard Poynder posted a really good interview today with the Gates Foundation’s Associate Officer of Knowledge & Research Services, Ashley Farley. I feel bad about picking on one fragment of it, but I really can’t let this bit pass:

'RP: As you said, Gates-funded research publications must now have a CC BY licence attached. They must also be made OA immediately. Does this imply that the Gates foundation sees no role for green OA? If it does see a role for green OA what is that role?

AF: I wouldn’t say that the foundation doesn’t see value or a role for green open access. However, the policy requires immediate access, reuse and copyright arrangements that green open access does not necessarily provide. '

Before I get into this, let me say again that I have enormous admiration for what Ashley Farley and the Gates Foundation are doing for open access, and for open scholarship more widely. But: The (excellent) Gates policy requires immediate access, reuse and copyright arrangements that gold open access does not necessarily provide, either. It provides them only because the Gates Foundation has quite rightly twisted publishers’ arms, and said you can only have our APCs if you meet our requirements...."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » ab1630's bookmarks

Tags: oa.gates_foundation oa.licensing oa.debates oa.funders.private oa.policies.funders oa.definitions oa.mandates oa.repositories oa.libre oa.policies oa.funders

Date tagged:

02/15/2018, 11:53

Date published:

02/15/2018, 07:13