See this post and the replies on G+ at [archived post].
My short description of the situation: the future is here, and it is not gold OA (nor the flawed green OA definition which ignores arXiv). So, visually:
It has never occurred to me that putting an article in a visible place (like arXiv.org) is parasitic green OA. +Michael B. Eisen calls it parasitic because he supposes that this has to come along with the real publication. But what if not?
[Added: Eisen writes in the body of the post that he uses the definition given by Harnad to green OA, which ignores the reality. It is very conveniently for gold OA to have a definition of green OA which does not apply to the oldest (1991) and fully functional example of a research communication experiment which is OA and green: the arXiv.org.]
Then, compared to that, gold OA appears as a progress.
I think gold OA, in the best of cases, is a waste of money for nothing.
A more future oriented reply has +Mike Taylor
who sees two possible futures, green (without the assumption from Eisen post) and gold.
I think that the future comes faster. It is already here.
Relax. Try validation instead peer review. Is more scientific.
Definition. Peer-reviewed article: published by the man who saw the man who claims to have read it, but does not back the claim with his name.
The reviewers are not supermen. They use the information from the traditional article. The only thing they are supposed to do is that they read it. This is what they use to give their approval stamp.
Validation means that the article provides enough means so that the readers can reproduce the research by themselves. This is almost impossible with an article in the format inherited from the time when it was printed on paper. But when the article is replaced by a program which runs in the browser, which uses databases, simulations, whatever means which facilitate the validation, then the reader can, if he so wishes, make a scientific motivated opinion about this.
Practically the future has come already and we see it on Github. Today. Non-exclusively. Tomorrow? Who knows?
Going back to the green-gold OA dispute, and Elsevier recent change of sharing and hosting articles (which of course should have been the real subject of discussions, instead of waxing poetic about OA, only a straw man).
This is not even interesting. The discussion about OA revolves around who has the copyright and who pays (for nothing).
I would be curious to see discussions about DRM, who cares who has the copyright?
But then I realised that, as I wrote at the beginning of the post, the future is here.
Here to invent it. Open for everybody.
I took the image from this post by +Ivan Pierre and modified the text.
Don’t forget to read the replies from the G+ post. I archived this G+ post because the platform went down. Read here why I deleted the chemlambda collection from G+.