%0 Journal Article
%T What does ¡®green¡¯ open access mean? Tracking twelve years of changes to journal publisher self
%A Denise Troll Covey
%A Elizabeth Gadd
%J Journal of Librarianship and Information Science
%@ 1741-6477
%D 2019
%R 10.1177/0961000616657406
%X Traces the 12-year self-archiving policy journey of the original 107 publishers listed on the SHERPA/RoMEO Publisher Policy Database in 2004, through to 2015. Maps the RoMEO colour codes (¡®green¡¯, ¡®blue¡¯, ¡®yellow¡¯ and ¡®white¡¯) and related restrictions and conditions over time. Finds that while the volume of publishers allowing some form of self-archiving (pre-print, post-print or both) has increased by 12% over the 12 years, the volume of restrictions around how, where and when self-archiving may take place has increased 119%, 190% and 1000% respectively. A significant positive correlation was found between the increase in self-archiving restrictions and the introduction of Gold paid open access options. Suggests that by conveying only the version of a paper that authors may self-archive, the RoMEO colour codes do not address all the key elements of the Bethesda Definition of Open Access. Compares the number of RoMEO ¡®green¡¯ publishers over time with those meeting the definition for ¡®redefined green¡¯ (allowing embargo-free deposit of the post-print in an institutional repository). Finds that RoMEO ¡®green¡¯ increased by 8% and ¡®redefined green¡¯ decreased by 35% over the 12 years. Concludes that the RoMEO colour codes no longer convey a commitment to green open access as originally intended. Calls for open access advocates, funders, institutions and authors to redefine what ¡®green¡¯ means to better reflect a publisher¡¯s commitment to self-archiving
%K Embargo periods
%K green open access
%K institutional repository
%K publisher policies
%K self-archiving
%U https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0961000616657406