After a month of waiting in vain for a reply about this submission
to BioMed Central's "Open Access Now" http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/
I have decided it is time to make it Open Access, Now!
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:21:59 + (GM
Michael is right. Most biomedical research has an appropriate
open-access journal for it to be published in. The barrier to
submitting to those journals is no higher than the barrier to
self-archiving. The main issue is inertia and conservatism in both cases.
Richard
Michael Eisen wrote:
I t
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Les Carr wrote:
> It was very interesting to see some publishers' reactions to OA 1 & 2
> at a meeting I attended recently. The discussion I was present for came
> down clearly on the side of Open Archives as a preferable (and stable)
> way forward, even describing it as a "sa
I fully agree with what Mike and Sally say. 'Numbers of journals' is a bad
metric, as their sizes differ so dramatically. But what Mike brings up is
very important. It's not the number of journals that count but the range of
options to publish with open access. Why would the current universe of
25,
It was very interesting to see some publishers' reactions to OA 1 & 2
at a meeting I attended recently. The discussion I was present for came
down clearly on the side of Open Archives as a preferable (and stable)
way forward, even describing it as a "safety valve" on an overheated
system. My impre
The Press Release is now online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology
_committee/scitech111203a.cfm
David
David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail: david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 1865 284 451
Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888
http://
A 15:04 11/12/03 -0800, Michael Eisen a écrit :
I would also like to object, once again, to Stevan's continued use of this
5% open access / 95% self-archiving number. It's grossly unfair to contrast
reality (<5% of articles currrently publ
Michael Eisen's point is fundamental enough to be worth considering very
explicitly and with considerable attentiveness. I hope many voices will
make themselves heard on this, because what is at issue goes to the
heart of open access provision itself, particularly what can be done
to provide maximu
I think Sally is absolutely correct that less than 2.5% of published content
is published in open access journals, but that doesn't count the large
amount of material that is made freely available by fee-for-access
publishers through their own websites or through PubMed Central. I, of
course, don't
