For immediate release
January 14, 2004
For more information, contact:
Helen Doyle, Public Library of Science, +1 415.624.1217, hdo...@plos.org or
see http://www.plos.org/support.
NEW CHANNEL OF SUPPORT FOR OPEN-ACCESS PUBLISHING
Public Library of Science Announces Launch of Institutional
OSI is pleased to announce the release of the second edition of the
Guide to Institutional Repository Software. The guide has been updated
to include two additional systems: ARNO and Fedora. In addition, the
new guide reflects comments and suggestions received following the
release of the first
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Thomas Krichel wrote:
$1500 per paper should be amply sufficient to fund the
publishing operation. I suggest that libraries support other
ventures with more moderate charges.
Thomas, did you mean $500 ? Otherwise your posting does not quite
make sense. (PLoS is
OAI Service Providers: SciTech and SocSciences and Humanities
I am pleased to announce the availability of two recently-published
articles that profile various Open Archives Initiative Service
Providers:
Gerry McKiernan. Open Archives Initiative Service Providers. Part
I:
Science and
I am a science writer from [deleted]. I am sending you four questions
I have for an article that I am writing about the open access debate in
[deleted].
1 There are approximately 20,000 scientific journals. Currently only a
fraction operates on an open access model. Do you expect the number
I have generally avoided discussion in this listserv but I think you have
introduced a significant distortion to the discussion by quoting the figure
of 24,000 scientific journals which allegedly produce 2,500,000 articles per
year. I presume someone has estimated the average of 100 articles per
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Garfield, Eugene wrote:
I think you have introduced a significant distortion to the discussion
by quoting the figure of 24,000 scientific journals...
A more realistic figure for journals would be ten to fifteen thousand
scientific journals putting aside the crucial
You have avoided my main point by regurgitating to me what you have stated
before. However, I appreciate your prompt response. Don't you ever sleep?
Gene
When responding, please attach my original message
__
Eugene Garfield, PhD. email:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Garfield, Eugene wrote:
You have avoided my main point by regurgitating to me what you have stated
before. However, I appreciate your prompt response. Don't you ever sleep?
When responding, please attach my original message
Gene, sorry I passed over your main point! (I am
Stevan Harnad writes
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Thomas Krichel wrote:
$1500 per paper should be amply sufficient to fund the
publishing operation. I suggest that libraries support other
ventures with more moderate charges.
Thomas, did you mean $500 ? Otherwise your posting does not
2.1 Cost: Journals that use a funding model that charges users
or their institutions are not included.
http://www.doaj.org/articles/about/#criteria
sh is misleading and will (1) make journals that still charge
sh subscriptions think they are not open-access (gold) journals
sh even
Journals with 90% rejection rates, like Nature, Science and Cell have
considerably higher editorial costs (per published paper) than those with
rejection rates of 40%-60%, which is an average value for middle-of-the-road
biomedical journals. Nearly the same effort goes into peer reviewing a
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Kjellberg Sara wrote:
Yes, agreed. We were not even thinking about the print version in that
way. All OA journals we know of who run a parallel print version charge
for that. How about this addition to our criteria?
2.1 Cost: Journals that use a funding model that
13 matches
Mail list logo
