Alicia, Some publishers are often criticised, you're right, and I agree that they shouldn't be for just being an established scholarly publisher. And I don't think they are as often as you perhaps assume. It is the policies and business models that are criticised rather than the publishers per se. And you may have noticed that the scientific community is often criticised as well, for moaning and then doing what is not consistent with what they are moaning about, to put it crudely.
I think that if a publisher, Elsevier, say, were to make all the journal material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period of a year (possibly 2 years in certain slow-moving areas), that publisher might lose a few reprint sales, but gain a fair amount of kudos as well. Of course it isn't the same as immediate OA, but it would be an important step in the right direction. Would you consider advising your corporate masters to do just that? Anyway, there will be plenty of other steps in the right direction one can think of, but this is the one that springs to mind immediately. It really is the policies, not the publisher per se, though you will agree with me that it is perhaps understandable that some specific policies are commonly identified with specific publishers, and it is the publishers who make the policies, of course. Best, Jan On 11 May 2012, at 10:55, David Prosser wrote: > 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
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
