Gold OA Sample Clauses

Gold OA. The main alternative to green OA is access provided at the point of publication through the book or journal itself, so-called gold OA. Here, the publication is released in an openly accessible form, often under a Creative Commons licence that permits a certain amount of adaption and reuse by readers. Unlike with green OA, gold OA does not run in parallel with the traditional publishing process but instead modifies it by making the final version of record immediately open access. Gold OA therefore has greater implications for the economics of publishing than green OA, simply because publishers are not selling the final publication (at least, not all versions of it) and must look to recover costs in other ways. For this reason, gold OA is associated with a range of business models for cost recovery, but also DIY efforts with no observable business model, like the kinds practiced by scholar-led publishers. One of the common associations with gold OA is the article-processing charge (APC), which is levied by publishers and paid by authors for the cost of publishing an article. Even though editorial work is provided for free by academics, there are still many services associated with certain forms of book and journal publishing, such as typesetting, marketing, peer-review management, copyediting and indexing (▇▇▇▇ 2017), for which publishers look to recover cost. The charge can total many thousands of pounds for an individual journal article (▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2015) and much more for a book-processing charge (▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2018), although APCs are intended to come out of an author’s grant funding rather than their own personal income. The opacity of how such processing charges has also led many to call for increased transparency in how they are calculated (Tennant 2018), alongside greater transparency of the ‘financial flows’ in scholarly communication more generally (▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇ 2016). As is frequently pointed out with gold OA based on APCs, humanities disciplines in general do not have access to regular and consistent grant funding that would cover the cost of such charges. This has led some humanities researchers to worry about a new system of publishing based on ‘paying to say’ (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2014; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ 2013). Such a system of publishing would reduce access iniquities but deny a voice to those who could not pay, for example most humanities researchers, independent researchers or those not from well-funded research disciplines in the Global North. As ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ poi...