Re: The Green and Gold Roads to Open Access

[Sherif Masoud <smasoud@aucegypt.edu>]

I strongly disagree with Mr. Joe Esposito's reply; Professor Harnad 
usually makes statements based on scientific evidence (it is not merely a 
question of colors; colors are only an aid for understanding the facts). 
Professor Harnad's rigorous critisim shouldn't be taken as a bad sign (the 
floor is open for anyone to present their conclusions but of course with 
supporting clues; or else they will not find acceptance in the open access 
community).

Sherif Masoud
http://homepages.uc.edu/~masoudsa/

"Joseph J. Esposito" < espositoj@gmail.com> wrote:

We seem to stuck on the same point, destined to repeat it forever.
Besides the gratuitous criticism of Fenton and Schonfeld's excellent
article--which does exactly what it sets out to do, namely, analyze the
situation for LEGACY PRINT journals--Professor Harnad insists on creating
a problem where none exists. His method simply is to assert a definition
that probably no one in the world shares besides himself, and that is his
idiosyncratic definition of Open Access. I could say that "gay" means
bright and cheerful, but surely most members of this list will read with
the meaning "homosexual" in mind. Harnad's OA is of the
lowest-common-denominator variety, but he insists on confusing everyone
with OA classifications that draw on all the colors of the rainbow. Few
besides Harnad believes what he proposes is worth anything. His view may
be correct, but his insistence on shutting down discourse on the subject
is simply not in keeping with the conventions of the intellectual
community. Why he should impugn Charles Schwartz's diligence is beyond
me.

Perhaps someone with grant money and time on their hands is willing to
Google "open access" and impose a typology on the 21,600,000 instances of
its appearance in the Web index and end up with Harnad's "approval
rating." I note that among the top ten sites listed is one for open access
to health care.

Joe Esposito