David Prosser wrote:
I remember severn or eight years ago a prominent publisher saying that allo=
wing green self-archiving was a massive tactical mistake on the part of pub=
lishers. They only allowed it because they believed it would never gain an=
y traction. This is why Elsevier is
Eric,
1. I still do not conflate the accessibility problem with the affordability
problem.
2. If the whole world would and could “flip” from what they are paying now
for their incoming subscriptions to paying the same total amount for their
outgoing publications as over-priced Fool’s Gold in
Stevan-
I hate to say I told you so, but at the Budapest meeting years ago it
was pointed out repeatedly that once green OA actually became a threat to
publishers, they would no longer look so kindly on it. It took a while, but
the inevitable has now happened. Green OA that relied on
Mike,
I will respond more fully on your blog:
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1710
To reply briefly here:
1. The publisher back-pedalling and OA embargoes were anticipated. That’s
why the copy-request Button
https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopywas already created
to
I remember severn or eight years ago a prominent publisher saying that allowing
green self-archiving was a massive tactical mistake on the part of publishers.
They only allowed it because they believed it would never gain any traction.
This is why Elsevier is back-paddling furiously and we
Like Stevan, I would not characterize the green road as parasitic; or,
if I were, I would do so only in the sense that when some mushrooms
parasite other mushrooms, they make them much more comestible...
Green and Gold are a bit like the two fists of a boxer: you parry with
one and hit with the
My bad, apologies to Elsevier, unless I'm having hallucination and what I see
on Elsevier doesn't really exist [or I'm not hallucinating and this policy has
changed], I was wrong in my interpretation yesterday.
I have cognitive dissonance between what I read here, and what I read a few
weeks -
Eric,
I'm not sure I'm reading it the same way you are, nor am I as convinced as
Mike is that Green OA (of pre-prints author manuscripts) is a threat to
publishers.
On the first point, if you read Karen's statement as the author version,
including peer-review revisions is now considered to be a
I am getting a bit irritated reading about parasitic and especially about
predatory solely in the context of OA, as if the shortcoming of the
scientific publication system and of the peer-review process were exclusively
encountered in OA (Gold) journals.
Remember the work of Cyril and
Stevan
The point you make is important. Elsevier HAS changed its policy and in fact
the difference is that the peer-review process, done for free by academics, is
now under embargo, whereas it wasn’t before. So you are right to mention that
Elsevier is backpedalling on OA. The pre-print,
10 matches
Mail list logo
