For the record, I *never* said, suggested, or implied "under the same roof".
Jan Velterop > -----Original Message----- > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > Sent: 14 December 2003 15:01 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Re: Journals > Peer-Reviewed Journals > Open-Access > Journals < > Open Access > [cut] > Regarding Richard's view on whether the existing 600 > open-access journals > http://www.doaj.org/ (not all or even most of them biomedical > journals) > are indeed enough for most biomedical research output today, > it would be > helpful if Richard could consider and reply to the points > made by Helene Bosc > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3269.html > both on the number of suitable journals of various kinds, and on the > very important question of "consanguinity": Should there be many > independent, competing journals, as now, or a few under the same roof, > a possibility Jan Velterop of BioMedCentral has suggested? > ("Why not just 250?") > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3272.html > >> ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information on a proactive email security service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com ________________________________________________________________________
