OK. Let's see where we've got to in the recent flurry over "Gold"
option and monographs/books:
--The UK is only one country, and things may be different elsewhere.
No debate. I only referred to consequences in the UK. E.g., Canada
(I'm a Canadian citizen living in the UK) may have provisio
Contra Prosser, it IS strictly true in the UK that the *Gold* option
involves author-pays. The RCUK allows the "Green" approach *for the
present time*, but with intonations that they'd really like everything
to go Gold. I've read the consultation document.
Larry Hurtado
Quoting David Pros
In response to Dr. Morrison: If you're getting by with author-pay
charges per journal article of $1000 (Canadian, I presume), count
yourself lucky. The two articles I've had accepted this year, in
journals published by OUP and by Brill, each would have cost me
£2000-2500 (UK Pounds). (No
A few responses to Guedon's comments:
--The "gold" approach here in the UK = author-pay, whatever it may
mean elsewhere.
--If many journals offer "free" services to authors, that's because
they have an income-stream to pay the people who provide the services,
whether by some form of subsidy (
Further to Steven's comment, as a scholar in the Humanities, in which
the book/monograph is still THE major medium for high-impact
research-publication, mandating a major change such as OA (even
"Green", to say nothing of the horrid "Gold"), would be opposed by at
least the overwhelming maj
Thanks to Steven Harnad for giving us his enthusiastic view on the
HEFCE prooposd policy for REF and OA. Among my concerns that he
doesn't address, however, is one that will be shared by many/all in
the Humanities (almost always the Cinderella at the OA ball): What
about books?
Though sci
Webster concisely articulates the concerns that I briefly mooted a few
days ago.
Larry Hurtado
Quoting Omega Alpha Open Access on Wed, 25
Jul 2012 11:03:30 -0400:
> Hat Tip: Let’s not leave Humanities behind in the dash for open access
> http://wp.me/p20y83-no
>
> Nice article this morning b
On Open Peer Review, my guess is that it's not so important in the
Humanities. I take it that in the Sciences, it's deemed important
that such things as lab results, experimental trials, etc., be
circulated a.s.a.p. In the Humanities, it's typically a slower pace.
We're not so heavily da
Yes, thanks, Esther. But the Stock YouTube conversation is VERY
generalized and non-specific about practical issues such as I raised,
and focused also still mainly on Sciences. The same goes also for the
Ms Kroes blog posting.
The one thing I take from the Stock YouTube conversation is tha
I'm President of my UK learned society, and have had no contact about
the Finch project or anything connected with scholarly publishing.
So, I'm not confident that the scholarly community has been involved
adequately in the Finch process (though I stand to be corrected).
From what little I'
As someone who monitors this discussion and only rarely comments, one small
observation in response to David Goodman.
Although I appreciate his sentiment, the realia of current academic life cannot
be ignored. E.g., for tenure and promotion, for granting bodies, etc., there
remains the need to ide
11 matches
Mail list logo
