Hi Alica There are a number of good examples.
In gold OA we have the example of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, and hundreds of other publishers who are showing the OA gold is a sustainable model. In hybrid, we have publishers such as Springer who a) make obvious papers where the author has paid a publication fee to make the paper OA and b) publish the OA papers as CC-BY rather than retaining restrictive copyright licenses. (On the flip side we have examples of publishers who have taken payment under hybrid models and then have had to be chased to make the papers freely available - those publishers really need to get their processes in order). In green, we have many, many good examples of clear and unrestrictive policies that allow authors to self-archive. Particularly un-welcome are those publishers who put in place complex restrictions, or whose policies place authors in conflict with funder or institutional mandates. I think we have wonderful examples of a wide range of publishers who have embraced open access (in both its forms) and I don't believe that many of us feel that publishers are exclusively a negative force in open access. Of course, some specific publishers have tried to be a negative force - those that hire expensive PR lobbyists and paint open access as 'junk science' for example. But thankfully such publishers are few and far between. Best wishes David On 11 May 2012, at 10:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote: > Hi all, > > I’m glad we’re now moving our conversation on in new directions, and I’ld > like to suggest one which I hope will be productive. The discussion on this > list often seems to me be based on the assumption that scholarly publishers > are a wholly negative force in the open access world, and a community to be > avoided/undermined/mistrusted at all costs. This feels unwarranted to me – > and perhaps other publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to > stick their heads over the parapet. So, knowing that positive messages are > powerful ways to influence: what positive things are established scholarly > publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for open access and future > scholarly communications that should be encouraged, celebrated, recognized? > > With kind wishes, > > Alicia > > > Dr Alicia Wise > Director of Universal Access > Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB > P: +44 (0)1865 843317 I M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com I > Twitter: @wisealic > > > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of > CHARLES OPPENHEIM > Sent: 11 May 2012 09:27 > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA > > This has just been published - see > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.pdf. > Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to peer > reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has figured in a > piece of legislation??). This is something that scholarly publishers will no > doubt pick up on as an argument against unrefereed green OA. > > Charles > > Professor Charles Oppenheim > > > > Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, > Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 > (England and Wales). > > <ATT00001..txt>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
