I echo Nathan Hosburgh's note of caution about this move by Sage. As well as
the points Nathan makes, we must remember that publishers are competing for
market share, especially at a time of change in the market. To me the $99
offer reads like a traditional loss-leader to make an early grab for
It is certainly worth any subscriber to this list who supports open access
submitting evidence, whether institutional or personal. Submissions to the 2004
Enquiry by the equivalent House of Commons Select Committee were taken
seriously and many did influence the Committee’s Report, although
The “Statement on position in relation to open access” issued by the Editors of
twenty-one important history journals is a very significant development and has
not received the discussion it deserves (see
http://www.history.ac.uk/news/2012-12-10/statement-position-relation-open-access
). In
between an imbalanced, expensive and possibly unsustainable
policy that could antagonise researchers, and a policy retreat that would
leave little to build on with academic policy makers scarred by this
process. We need to tread carefully.
Steve
On 6 Dec 2012, at 15:32, Frederick Friend wrote
by an
explanatory paragraph, as few MPs are likely to know much about open access.
Contacting local politicians has been effective in the US.
Fred Friend
-Original Message-
From: Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 12:09 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; Frederick
Stevan summarises the current situation on UK OA policy very well. It is
surprising after almost six months of criticism of the Finch Report that there
has been so little defence of the Finch/RCUK/BIS position and (to my knowledge)
no response to the criticism voiced. Of all the parties
Stevan provides a valuable analysis of the green/gold world we are entering.
The assumption behind so much of the current debate has been that the current
publishing structure should and will continue, but both the economics and the
technology suggest radical change. The Finch Report
Congratulations to Richard Poynder on a brilliant and extremely valuable
interview with Ian Gibson. As one who gave oral Evidence to the Science and
Technology Committee in 2004, I can vouch for the accuracy of the comments
on the Committee's work. Reading the Poynder interview made me fetch my
Jean-Claude’s approach is very sensible, and very much in the interests of OA.
The gratis/libre distinction is valuable but it should not become a fundamental
disagreement between OA supporters of good will. Those who need OA content will
be the losers if we take too dogmatic an approach to
I have no problem with this model, assuming that there is no compulsion from
the RCs to move to the second stage of publishing in a journal. However, if
there is a possibility that many articles will only go to stage 1 and are
deposited in a repository without going on to be published in a
Would open access supporters please note the date of this meeting in their
diaries. Thanks, Fred Friend
- Original Message -
From: Hans Falk Hoffmann hans.falk.hoffm...@cern.ch
To: oac-participants (Mr Hoffmann's contact list July 2004)
oac-participa...@cern.ch
Sent: Monday, November
The exchanges on this list proceed so quickly that often I feel the
discussion has moved on too far by the time I get around to replying
to any message, but I would like to pick up on Helene's and Stevan's
views of the Berlin roadmap.
I agree with Helene that it would be good to have some of the
Stevan Harnad wrote:
Ebs Hilf provides a good summary of the 4 forms of self-archiving
and their growth, but he betrays his biasses when he keeps talking
about *preprint* self-archiving, and relegates journals to performing
an optional, post-hoc service on preprints.
Eberhard's description
Paul M Gherman (Vanderbilt University) wrote:
Re: PALS report and conference on Institutional Repositories
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3603.html
Institutional Repositories (IR's) are gaining good traction at many
research universities, and I think it is time for the Open
14 matches
Mail list logo
