Dear All,
I am trying to establish (in the specific context of scholarly journals)
whether anyone knows of any research that has been undertaken to establish
the dollar cost of a) implementing the peer review of a scholarly paper, b)
distributing a scholarly paper electronically.
If so, I would b
On Tue, 20 May 2008, Richard Poynder wrote:
> I am trying to establish (in the specific context of scholarly journals)
> whether anyone knows of any research that has been undertaken to establish
> the dollar cost of a) implementing the peer review of a scholarly paper,
> b)
> distributing a schol
ve his cake and eat it right now.
Barbara
- Original Message -
From: "Stevan Harnad"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: The cost of peer review and electronic distribution of
scholarly journals
> ** Apologies for Cross-Posting **
>
>
> His concluding paragraph says, 'A publish for free, read for free' model may
> one day prove to be viable. Meanwhile, if I have to choose between the two
> evils, I prefer the 'publish for free and pay to read' model over the 'pay
> to publish and read for free' one. Because if I must choose betw
From: "Enrico M. Balli"
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: May 24, 2008 10:56:55 AM EDT (CA)
To:
Dear Stevan,
I totally share your statement on Richard Poynder's query, and would
like to give my contribution to the discussion. Sissa
Medialab is not exactly a publisher
t: Re: The cost of peer review and electronic distribution of
scholarly journals
> Dr Gadagkar can have his cake and eat it right now.
>
> Barbara
- Original Message -
From: "Stevan Harnad"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: The cost of peer rev
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Talat Chaudhri [tac] wrote:
> Gold OA [1] isn't popular and, I suspect, [2] never will be.
You are right about the first point [1], and the reason is partly
the current price of Gold OA and partly the fact that Gold OA is not
yet necessary, because Green OA (self-archiving) c
