On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:
Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [
> http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments
> .
> It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear in
> I think the new OA Policy of the RCUK is a pragmatic one and could be
> a role model for others outside the UK because it reflects and
> supports the vital development on the Gold OA publication market
> (beyond PLoS and BMC think of PeerJ, IZA journals, Forum of
> Mathematics, eLife, OAPEN, SCOA
Friends:
Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [
http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments
.
It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication that
the general public (at least the segment
I think there is a real danger here in this new approach taken by RCUK, and
that it concerns the whole scientific community.
I sense that commercial publishers have now found, or been given, a way to
justify their existence (not to mention their huge profit margins).
In light of the plausible g
In my opinion, on the contrary, the RCUK policy is not a good one,
precisely because it puts the interests of the "Gold OA publication market",
and even the "publication market" tout court, in front of the interests of
research and researchers.
Journals are just instrumental in research, they are
I think the new OA Policy of the RCUK is a pragmatic one and could be a role
model for others outside the UK because it reflects and supports the vital
development on the Gold OA publication market (beyond PLoS and BMC think of
PeerJ, IZA journals, Forum of Mathematics, eLife, OAPEN, SCOAP3, eEc
Mark Thorley's response is very disappointing:
-- MT: "the ‘corrections’ [Harnad] proposes would dilute our policy so that
it was no longer able to deliver the level of open access which the
Research Councils require."
http://blogs.rcuk.ac.uk/2012/08/10/the-benefits-of-open-access/#comment-81
The
I find the idea of a funder ring-fencing money for publishers strange.
Requiring open access (public access to publicly funded research) is
obviously a policy question but is the cost-recovery model of publishers
really an appropriate area for funders to be concerned with?
Besides, why does the hy
One continuing concern is that blended journals, i.e. gold OA for some articles
only, are not very efficient means of making OA articles visible. We have no
standard means of noting at the journal level or in abstracting and indexing
services or services such as google scholar which articles i
