On 2012-06-20, at 3:39 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: > There is *no* price competition for subscriptions. That is part of the > problem. There *is* for 'gold' OA. > And price competition is an issue ever since the argument that "'green' is > cheaper" crept into the discussion.... > > I don't think characterising the Finch Committee as gullible is doing the > cause of open access any good.
1. The cause of Open Access is *access*, now, not price competition. 2. Persuading the world it's otherwise is not doing the cause of Open Access any good. Mandating Green, globally, is the way to provide Open Access, now. Recommending instead yet another 10-year plan that would throw 50-60 million extra pounds a year at Gold instead of mandating Green, cost-free, is sending both the UK and the rest of the world on a fool's errand. Praise is hardly in order. Stevan Harnad P.S. What's needed is not publishers' agreement on anything. What's needed is institutions' and funders' agreement on mandating Green OA (ID/OA). _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
