The current implementation of OA (any of them) is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy: we convinced ourselves that “publishers are evil” and impossible to get rid of, and now we are paying them so that they don’t have to do their job. We basically retired publishers early with an extra pension, all because everyone “wants to believe” in open access. But guess what? This is not disruptive. OA is just as “capitalist evil” as the usual publishing, or even more so. Do you want to be disruptive? The disrupt. Get rid of the publishers. Or at least constrain funding only to not-for-profits for example.
There's no APC with Green OA, so what money are you talking about? Green OA is regular publishing, but with self archiving. There will be a version freely available, and the publishers aren't paid for that privilege.
If you want a route to the death of publishers, green OA is a promising one.
(I think the headline ought to emphasise that this is pushing green OA, which is the interesting bit)
that's not how it works. you don't pay anything.
I think this is backwards. The definitive version that should be cited is the freely-available one, since that is the version that everyone can read. No one should cite the paywalled version.
This is already the case, almost wveryone puts the preprints on arxiv/SSRN
Social sciences may be behind though as you say, I do not know as I'm not in that field.
That matters for a few reasons:
(1) the average person more frequently encounters psychological, social and medical issues more than they do math problems. And since the research in those fields tends to be pay walled, people are at the mercy of things like SEO spam medical and health sites.
(2) wrong ideas in medicine or psychology can (and have in the past) damaged entire generations of people. So in that sense their blast radius can be very large. This means that peer review is especially important and that there's a potential negative externality to posting preprints and drafts before they're finalized. I suspect we'd have to solve the peer review and quality problem before STEM-style preprint archives become the norms in all fields.
Much of the medical and life sciences space does not publish on Arxiv or OA platforms.
It's slowly changing with Green OA initiatives being pushed by government donors, but not there yet.
> Social sciences may be behind though as you say
Econ, a lot of PoliSci, Finance/Business, and Computational Linguistics was very early on the OA/Working Paper movement.
That's just bs. They can make a law fixing that for free but won't. It's not can, but will which is the problem.
"Japan’s move to greater access to its research is focusing on 'green OA' — in which authors make the author-accepted, but unfinalized, versions of papers available in the digital repositories, says Seiichi.
Seiichi says that gold OA — in which the final copyedited and polished version of a paper is made freely available on the journal site — is not feasible on a wide scale. That’s because the cost to make every paper free to read would be too high for universities."