Unhelpful coverage

A new article in the U of North Carolina student paper says that UNC is considering a policy requiring faculty to submit new work to OA journals. (Call that a gold OA mandate.)

I'd bet that the article is wrong, and that UNC is really considering a policy requiring faculty to deposit new work in OA repositories. (Call that a green OA mandate.)

Gold OA mandates limit faculty freedom to submit work to the journals of their choice. Green OA mandates don't. That's the very good reason why all OA mandates are green.

Gold OA mandates will be compatible with academic freedom when virtually all OA journals are OA. But we're not there today and we're not even close.

If UNC is really considering a gold OA mandate, it should rethink. But if the article is wrong and UNC is really considering a green OA mandate, then the newspaper should print a correction. This kind of mistake does damage. When faculty think a policy is about gold OA rather than green OA (journals rather than repositories), they vote against the policy <http://goo.gl/MHHtI>. When faculty understand a green OA policy properly, they often vote unanimously to adopt it <http://goo.gl/Hl87>.

#oa #openaccess
Shared publiclyView activity