Publishers are capitalists - I don't think they'd argue the point.
The hostage metaphor really works for me and for many of my colleagues, as it
involves elements of ENFORCED TAKING and subsequent DEPRIVATION tied to
conditions of RANSOM.
Eric's piece makes the really interesting and helpful
Les:
I thought the first paragraph made it very clear I was attacking not only
Hitler arguments, but all of the weaker versions that portray one side as
morally inferior to the other.
In my mind, the explicit and the non-explicit versions are all equivalent,
and all equally irrelevant, as they
Erice Van de Velde wrote:
In my mind, the explicit and the non-explicit versions are all
equivalent, and all equally irrelevant, as they are just different
levels of name calling. I am not aware of anyone making the explicit
Hitler argument when it comes to open access. In fact, even my shrill
On 6 November 2012 03:32, Eric F. Van de Velde
eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com wrote:
Publishers are manipulative capitalists who extort academia by holding
hostage the research papers they stole from helpless scholars on a mission
to save the world. This Hitler vs. Mother Teresa narrative is
Can anyone shed light on the following apparent discrepancy:
Laakso and Bjork (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/124) give a
figure for articles published in 2011 and indexed in Scopus - 11% in full
Gold journals, 0.7% in hybrid journals, and 5% in 'delayed OA' journals with
a delay of
Eric's distinction between publishing for communication or for prestige
is quite thought-provoking, if not provocative. Does anyone have an idea
how many authors fall to each group? What's more important for majority
of academics: communication or prestige? ...
I think there's a misconception
