[GOAL] Re: OA and scholarly publishers

[David Prosser]

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.p
df.  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, O
xford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).

<ATT00001..txt>





    [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal