On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Richard Poynder < ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote:
> I have had an editorial published in ecancer journal with the above title. > > > > The final two paragraphs read: > > > > [W]hat if funders, governments and research institutions ceased providing > money for researchers to pay to publish, and instead insisted that they > continue publishing in subscription journals—but always self-archived their > papers in OA repositories (green OA)? Would this not mean that publishers > would have to compete with repositories in access provision? And would they > not as a result lower their prices? And if they did, could we not hope to > see both the accessibility and affordability problems resolved? > I would find this completely unacceptable. Firstly the publishers have always set the rules , on price, embargo and re-use. This will strengthen their position as the controllers, not services, of publication. For me it would mean the scholarly poor could often not read an article till 2 years after publication, could not datamine it for commercial purposes, could not re-use it for teaching without permission (teaching = commercial), could not aggregate into reviews, could not re-use diagrams. It would be no better than what we have now. And it would never happen because the funders have never been able to exercise enough power to mandate authors and universities have never managed to enforce anything. We would have to employ a lot more police. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
