BioMed Central waives charges for those who cannot stump up the $500 and make a reasonable case for that.
Jan Velterop > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Story [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 10 January 2003 16:18 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy > > > I agree that there are distinctions to be made between the > two systems, > Fytton. > > What I object to is one system that charges for the ability > to be "speak" > dissing a system that charges for the right to "listen"( or > perhaps more > accurately, the right to produce and read accessible > information)on the > grounds that the former is in favour of open access and that > the latter is > not. Both are against it, albeit in different ways. > > Many researchers, academic and otherwise, in many parts of > the world have > lots worth saying, but simply cannot "stump up" $US500 each time that > they --- and peer reviewers ----agree they have something > worthwhile/important to say as the BioMed model requires. > Sitting here in > our well-funded universities in the US and Europe -- or well-founded > compared to many parts of the world -- we tend to forget that > many such > researchers work at institutions where "of course" they don't > have the funds > to pay their staff for access to BioMed as a > contributor...and not merely as > a reader. > > Alan Story > Kent Law School > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf > Of Fytton > Rowland > Sent: Friday 10 January 2003 15:33 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy > > > Every information system has to be paid for somehow, since it has > unavoidable costs. The only way that you can (appear to) > charge nobody is > to have some kind of operating subsidy from somewhere. In > discussion and > analysis, it is helpful, in my view, to make a clear > distinction between > systems that charge the creator of the information and > systems that charge > the reader (or their respective institutions, of course). So > I find the > rather negative comment below a bit unhelpful. > > Fytton Rowland. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Story" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:21 PM > Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy > > > > Yes, but speaking of "nothing new at all": how can BioMed > claim to be the > > "gold standard" and say it believes in "open access" when > there is a flat > > fee of US$500 ( a.k.a. the article-processing charge) for > admission to the > > "open access" club in the first place. BioMed's user-pay > toll-gate has > just > > been moved further up the information superhighway. > > > > Alan Story > > Kent Law School > > Canterbury UK > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum > > [mailto:[email protected]]On > > Behalf Of Jan > > Velterop > > Sent: Friday 10 January 2003 10:06 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy > > > > > > I agree with Mike. Nature's new 'licence' is a > > 'pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes' version of what Elsevier calls the > > 'give-backs' and is nothing new at all, just a new PR > exercise. Clever PR, > > to be sure, but certainly nothing like the "[Nature]...again led the > > planet's 20,000 peer-reviewed journals in introducing the > optimal and > > inevitable copyright policy for the online era..." as > Stevan would have > it. > > For a start, the 90 or so peer-reviewed journals published by BioMed > Central > > have a copyright and licensing policy that can truly be > seen as leading: > > http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/license. No restrictions on > > self-archiving and further dissemination whatsoever. That > should be the > > 'gold-standard', not Nature's feeble attempt to look good without > delivering > > any substance worth mentioning. Congratulating Nature for > putting a new > > gloss on basically an old stance seems unnecessary sycophancy to me. > > > > Decribing the new Nature licence as a 'gift horse' that shouldn't be > looked > > in the mouth (in one of Stevan's earlier messages on this > topic) is giving > > the wrong impression that the scholarly community should > really sit back, > be > > patient, shut up, swim on, wait what's being given to them > and then be > > grateful for beads and mirrors. They should simply expect more from > > publishing, and demand the right to self-determination of > what can be done > > with their articles. Besides, there would be no point in > looking a dead > > horse in the mouth anyway, apart from performing an autopsy. > > > > Of course, authors could always re-format their papers and flip into > > 'subversive mode' again. They could always do that anyway, > and Nature's > new > > formulation of their restrictions doesn't make that any different. > > > > There is a lot to be cheerful and optimistic about with > regard to open > > access, but Nature's copyright licence ain't amongst it. > The question > > remains, if Nature really permits self-archiving (which is > what Stevan > seems > > to believe), why don't they make their research papers > available in open > > access or at least freely available after a short time (say > a month or > two)? > > There's nothing to be lost for them that cannot be > compensated by the > gains > > they could make from such a policy, in my view. Open access > advocates > should > > keep up the pressure instead of relenting when offered a > cigar from their > > own box. > > > > Jan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: 10 January 2003 03:32 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Michael Eisen wrote: > > > > > > > NATURE: "How can I show my article to my colleagues? By > > > sending a link > > > > to the paper on your website. You may not distribute the > > > PDF by email, > > > > on listservs or on open archives. Please remember that > > > although the > > > > content of the article is your copyright, its > > > presentation (i.e. its > > > > typographical layout as a printed page) remains our > copyright." > > > > > > That's just fine! Run the PDF through a PDF-to-HTML > > > converter, reformat it > > > trivially, and the layout is yours! (These details are > > > utterly *trivial*, > > > Mike, whereas the nontrivial, substantive part -- you may put your > > > refereed postprint on the web -- is *all* that was ever needed!) > > > > > > But I do believe they must have stopped giving lawyers logic > > > courses any > > > more as part of their degree! "You may not distribute the PDF > > > by email. > > > Send a link to it on your website instead." Gimme a break! > > > > > > And "You may not put it in an 'open archive' but only on > a personal > > > website?" So my personal website is not allowed to be > OAI-compliant? > > > > > > This is all papyrophilic juribabble based on defunct anlogies > > > with bygone > > > days and ways! It makes no sense. It is as > technologically innocent > > > as it is blissfully free of logic. How can anyone even > pretend to take > > > it seriously? > > > > > > "Your honour, the defendant's computer transferred this > > > open-access document > > > through the asynchronous sendmail protocol instead of synchronous > > > HTTP: Throw the book at him please." (Not to mention > that this level > > > of monitoring would require something even more intrusive than the > > > Patriot Act!) > > > > > > > If somehow authors construe this as a license to > > > self-archive, that's great. > > > > But lets not give Nature credit for something they have > not done. > > > > > > On the contrary, I think it's a very *good* strategy to give > > > Nature full > > > credit for what they have done -- to encourage the other > journals to > > > hurry up and do likewise! > > > > > > Cheers (and cheer up!), > > > > > > Stevan > > > > > > > >
