Jean-Claude,
It is easy to accept that scientific communication is not an activity that is
easily reconciled with commerce, share holders, and profit. Even though it
evidently has been reconciled for a very long time, in the print era, before
the internet and the web became available. In this
Stevan Harnad writes
Can you give us an example of an institution with a mandate that has
managed, for a period of a year, for example, to collect its
complete research output in its IR?
U. Southampton School of Electronics and Computer Science
(the oldest Green OA mandate).
I agree with Jan's analysis.
There is now mounting evidence that it costs about 100 USD to publish an
adequate qualilty open peer-reviewed scientific paper. In total.
My evidence:
* IUCr publishes 3000 OA papers a year (Acta Cryst E), IN FULLY SEMANTIC
FORM for 150USD which gives a useful profit.
On 2012-06-20, at 5:45 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
Hi Laurent,
Institutions already do have agreements with publishers via their libraries
and/or library consortia. This is certainly the case for INRIA.
Some humble advice for institutions and libraries:
Negotiate with publishers
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.ukwrote:
On 2012-06-20, at 5:45 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
Hi Laurent,
** **
Institutions already do have agreements with publishers via their
libraries and/or library consortia. This is certainly the case for
On 2012-06-20, at 7:15 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
...perhaps time to explore opportunities to work with publishers?
No, precisely the opposite, I think: It's time for institutions to realize that
institutional
Green OA self-archiving policy is (and always has been) exclusively their
Hi Stevan,
Elsevier has an agreement with one funding body that results in the posting of
100% of the articles flowing from its grant funding. There's no merit to
working with publishers on sustainable approaches to green open access?
Really??
And with that, I'm going to duck back down
What I really, and I mean *really* like about this exchange is that
priorities are finally being set up right. The business of research is
between researchers and the institutions supporting research.
Researchers ought to communicate among themselves as they choose, and
not as external players
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.ukwrote:
On
(And advise institutional researchers to ignore incoherent clauses
in their copyright agreements: Anything of the form P but not-P -- e.g.
you retain the right to self-archive, but not if you are required to
I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to denigrate both
the Finch report's authors and publishers in general. It would seem that
the (relatively small number of) primary contributors to this list take it
as an article of faith that publishers are to be hated and destroyed;
Stevan:
Thomas's humbug advice is not incompatible with green open access or with
mandates. In fact, it would accelerate the evolution of open access.
You equate access to the pay-walled literature with institutional site
licenses. There are other ways to gain access:
1. Obtain a personal
On 2012-06-20, at 10:22 AM, Sally Morris wrote:
I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to denigrate both
the Finch report's authors and publishers in general. It would seem that the
(relatively small number of) primary contributors to this list take it as an
article of
On 2012-06-20, at 10:30 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services
by transferring copyright.
Publishers are paid, in full, by institutional subscriptions.
They should pay with money and get open access.
Publication is being paid for already.
It is not a question of hating publishers; it is a question of placing
them in their rightful place. David Prosser, very aptly, defined
publishers as a service industry. This is excellent. Let publishers
behave like a service industry, while recognizing that other kinds of
actors and financial
On 20 Jun 2012, at 16:21, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On 2012-06-20, at 10:30 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services
by transferring copyright.
Publishers are paid, in full, by institutional subscriptions.
What does 'in full' mean here?
Gentle reader, please skip this if you have heard the same things
said by me and Jan over and over. If Jan posts again, I won't
reply. Please do not construe my silence as assent!
On 2012-06-20, at 2:54 PM, Jan Velterop wrote:
On 20 Jun 2012, at 16:21, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On 2012-06-20, at
16 matches
Mail list logo
