I think was is missing here is the realization that Elsevier needs all the
'good press' that it can generate. One easy way to do this would be to make
all the pre-1995 material OA. Since it is now obviously 20 years old, there
will be increasingly decreased demand, so what do they have to
The only essential cost in peer-reviewed research publication in the online
(PostGutenberg) era is the cost of managing peer review.
Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
The cost of properly and robustly preparing articles for preservation,
archiving, machine-reading (TDM) etc. is more essential in my view, given the
mess many authors (and, it has to be said, many publishers) make of that. That
cost is but a fraction of the cost of arranging peer review by
(and other traditional publishers) and PLOS
The only essential cost in peer-reviewed research publication in the online
(PostGutenberg) era is the cost of managing peer review.
Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
unsustainable: Mandate Green Open
Accesshttp
-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
*Sent:* May-01-15 5:11 AM
*To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
*Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier (and other traditional publishers) and PLOS
The only essential cost in peer-reviewed research
Heather and others,
Although I acknowledge the differences between these publishers, it is perhaps
noteworthy that apparently Elsevier did find it (commercially, which includes
reputation) wise to release mathematics backfiles for free, as you probably
know:
