[Posting by T. Andrew, followed by reply by S. Harnad]
Stevan
Whilst we are discussing the pros and cons of colour schemes we are
missing the point of what the SHERPA/Romeo list is all about. For me
it is primarily to provide a *single* point of access where I can check
publishers policies on self-archiving.
I agree with you that a simple colour scheme (i.e just green) is more
intuitive, however colours are not THAT important.
Whilst engaging with academics in my day to day self-archiving advocacy
at Edinburgh University, people want to know what the policies actually
are rather than a colour. To be honest, most people do not care/know
about the colour scheme. It actually means nothing to them.
Stevan- you have a well respected and privelidged position. People listen,
and act upon, what you say. Please be careful with what you are doing
here in trying to get your point across (even if it is legitimate).
By creating/enhancing the RoMEO list you have in effect created a
alternate (rival!?!) list that people will turn to. The lists are already
not *exactly* equivalent (Check for Institute of Mathematical Statistics-
in SHERPA, but not SOTONs). It's differences like these that will grow
and cause confusion in our camp.
We need to have a unified voice in all this and the longer we disagree
the more damage we are doing. Remember - we are on the same side!
Kind regards
Theo
Dr. Theo Andrew * Tel: 0131 651 1612
Theses Alive! & SHERPA * Fax: 0131 650 3380
Edinburgh University *
Main Library *
http://www.thesesalive.ac.uk
Edinburgh EH8 9LJ *
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk
-------------------------
Reply from Stevan Harnad:
> Whilst we are discussing the pros and cons of colour schemes we are
> missing the point of what the SHERPA/Romeo list is all about. For me
> it is primarily to provide a *single* point of access where I can check
> publishers' policies on self-archiving.
Theo,
I agree entirely. There should be a *single* point of access for the
SHERPA/Romeo list, and that point of access should be SHERPA. The reason I
created the alternative version at
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Romeo/romeo.html
was *not* because I want to provide a rival version: It was to illustrate
visually what I had already been recommending verbally to SHERPA for
months -- in fact, since before the new SHERPA/Romeo list was created.
See the thread starting:
"SHERPA will take over the Romeo Publisher Policy Table"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3100.html
(By the way, the primary purpose of the SHERPA/Romeo list is definitely
*not* so that permissions-librarians can check publishers' policies
on self-archiving, although that is one of its secondary purposes. The
primary purpose is so that authors can check their journals' policies
on self-achiving. It is authors who self-archive, and who need to be
encouraged to do so [e.g., by their journal's green light]. Perhaps this
unstated pespectival difference on the list's primary purpose is at the
root of some of the talking-past one another!)
> I agree with you that a simple colour scheme (i.e just green) is more
> intuitive, however, colours are not THAT important.
If the green-only is more intuitive, then why doesn't SHERPA/Romeo just
*adopt* it?
I do not understand why SHERPA keeps citing the old Romeo list (which
we were still busy actively optimising at the time the Romeo project
ended) as a precedent for retaining the old-Romeo colours, as if those
colours had been etched in stone (and perma-ink) and had already
become canonical (while at the same time adding further unnecessary
and unintuitive colours that were not even among the superfluous ones
already in the old-Romeo canon!).
Why not just fix it? Then it will be my version that becomes superfluous,
and I can happily remove it with all alacrity!
> Whilst engaging with academics in my day to day self-archiving advocacy
> at Edinburgh University, people want to know what the policies actually
> are rather than a colour. To be honest, most people do not care/know
> about the colour scheme. It actually means nothing to them.
As I have replied repeatedly, the specific policy information is all
there, in the individual entries, in *both* versions. So those who want to
know the policies (on preprints and on postprints) have everything
they want and need, in *both* versions. This is a non-sequitur as a
functional reason for retaining the superfluous colour scheme!
The purpose of the colours is for the summary statistics
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Romeo/romeosum.html
so as to be able to display and track the number and percentage
of publishers (and journals) that have given the green light to
self-archiving *at all*. Those are the "green" publishers (journals).
(The preprint/postprint subsets of green then just become, perfectly
intuitively, pale-green and bright-green.)
There is no need whatsoever for green publishers, blue publishers, yellow
publishers, and white publishers. Nor is there any need for red crosses,
nor for the (polysemous and somewhat inconsistent) green ticks. Green
alone says it all (with two shades for the preprint/postprint distinction
where needed).
But there *is* a need for listing journals, as well as publishers.
Lose the 3 unnecessary and unintuitive colours (blue, yellow, red), add
the necessary and informative journals, and you eradicate all need for
a second version of Romeo (and our group can go back to doing only what
we had proposed to do, which was to provide comparative statistics for OA
growth integrating the summary statistics from Romeo, DOAJ and OAIster):
"DOAJ, OAIster and Romeo should chart growth, as EPrints does"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3495.html
> Stevan- you have a well respected and privileged position. People listen,
> and act upon, what you say. Please be careful with what you are doing
> here in trying to get your point across (even if it is legitimate).
I am making recommendations -- verbal and visual -- for improving the
functionality of the SHERPA/Romeo list. I have no wish to create a rival
version of Romeo. It would be ever so helpful if SHERPA itself were to
"listen, and to act upon" these functional recommendations.
It does not seem to be very helpful -- by way of a response to legitimate
functional recommendations -- merely to cite precedent, or the irrelevance
of the colour code, as grounds for retaining a dysfunctional colour
code. It would seem to be more helpful either to repair the colour code
and wording and add the journals, as recommended, or to give *functional*
reasons why that would either not be better, or not be possible. (The
"rival" model seems, at the very least, to have demonstrated that it is
not impossible!)
> By creating/enhancing the RoMEO list you have in effect created an
> alternate (rival!?!) list that people will turn to. The lists are already
> not *exactly* equivalent (Check for Institute of Mathematical Statistics-
> in SHERPA, but not SOTONs). It's differences like these that will grow
> and cause confusion in our camp.
SHERPA have kindly allowed Soton to get its data directly from SHERPA, so
if the Soton version has to be maintained, it will be kept in phase. But
it was in fact not intended as a rival version. It was just intended
as a visual model, to supplement the prior verbal recommendations,
for upgrades that we hope will be incorporated into SHERPA's otherwise
excellent version.
> We need to have a unified voice in all this and the longer we disagree
> the more damage we are doing. Remember - we are on the same side!
I agree completely. But we do not have a unified voice as long a deaf ear
is turned to recommendations for improving functionality. Functionality
needs to be our joint concern.
Best wishes,
Stevan Harnad
Received on Mon Apr 12 2004 - 13:35:17 BST