Below is a comment on an article in Wired entitled
Open-Access Journals Flourish (by Randy Dotinga)
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,67174,00.html?tw=wn_2culthead
which (as usual) described only the gold rush and completely
overlooked the quiet growth of green:
There
Gold journals use various business models and are in no way limited to
the author-institution charge mentioned below. A good counter-example is
Scielo (http://www.scielo.org) where the journals are simply and
directly subsidized by governmental money on a macro scale, and not on a
per-article
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Rick Anderson wrote:
My question remains: do we want to encourage the development of Gold journals?
If not, if the existence of Gold journals doesn't really matter, then I guess
there's not an issue in my mind.
Yes, we should continue to encourage the development of Gold
On 14-Dec-04, at 5:13 PM, Rick Anderson wrote:
This is the part I don't get. If we're fooling ourselves to think that
there's anything particularly attractive to authors about publishing in
a Gold journal, then why is it a given that we should encourage and
support the development of Gold
Dear Rick,
I generally place much more emphasis on gold OA Journals than Stevan
does. Even I do not see how the percentage of journals that were OA
Journals could initially increase by more than 5% to 10% each year,
including both the change in existing journals and the replacement
of
This will be my last attempt to drag the conversation back to the issue
I've been hoping we could discuss (as opposed to the question of whether
it's okay to discuss it); if this one doesn't work, I'll have to give
up. (Is that the faint sound of cheering I hear?):
Stevan Harnad wrote:
the
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Jan Velterop wrote:
Economic viability, sustainability and scalability don't need to be
shown. The only thing that needs to be shown is 'cultural' acceptance
in the research community. Or even just in the funder community, which
will do fine. Economic viability and
[MODERATOR'S NOTE: I will not reply to this message (as it
looks to be veering towards non-substantive flaming) except
to confirm that I recognise and value most of BMC's contributions
to OA. -- S.H.]
--
Stevan,
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Rick Anderson wrote:
(1) What is the something that needs to be kept in mind?
I repeat: it is that offering a scholarly author lots of readers may
not tempt her to publish in an OA journal unless publishing in that
journal will also confer upon her professional
On 12 Dec 2004, at 14:43, Stevan Harnad wrote:
You need to stop and reconsider the mathematical logic of that
statement, Stevan. (In fact, every author has the option of
contributing to an OA journal, even if OA journals are a small
minority in the journal marketplace.)
I am always chuffed
On 12 Dec 2004, at 19:10, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Now let me count the ways in which the reality of researchers' needs
and
journal publishing goes against the analogy with cell-phones (or diesel
engines, or motorcars, or computers, or TVs, or the web, or whatever
piece
of technology you choose in
I really do think there is an argument abroad that green self-archiving is
worth engaging in because it will give experience in developing repositories,
providing access, etc.
But: why not cut to the chase? Why stumble over some pocket change en route to
picking up the one thousand dollar bill
On 7 Oct 2004, at 12:38, Brian Simboli wrote:
But: why not cut to the chase? Why stumble over some pocket change en
route to picking up the one thousand dollar bill that lies ahead on the
sidewalk? Why not directly engage in infrastructural initiatives that
will concurrently resolve access,
Brian Simboli's points, below, have already been discussed many times
in this Forum, but for those for whom the token just might at last drop
this time, I will try again, from a slightly different angle:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Brian Simboli wrote:
I think the overlay journal concept is much more
First, I would like to thank Brian for his comments, and note that I
wholeheartedly agree with almost all of them.
One area where we have a difference of opinion is whether the question
is to pursue the green or the gold road. I agree with Brian that the
best solution for providing access,
This discussion is going to turn to discussion about true task of an
academic librarian! For Steven Harnad it is acquisition, and to Brian
Simboli it is acquisition + preservation. Both views are somewhat limited,
I believe. Librarians should be responsible for provision (in very
broad meaning) of
Stevan Harnad, Professor of Cognitive Science
Southampton University, UK
---
Dear All,
I ask gpgNet forum readers to note how frequently in Jan Velterop's mostly
useful
and informative posting [See, http://groups.undp.org/read/messages?id=97847 ],
Open Access keeps
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Fytton Rowland wrote:
Stevan's reply to Brian is precisely what one would have expected him to
say, given his previous statements. Like Stevan, I agree that
peer-reviewed journals should stay, though exactly what a journal will
look like in the middle-distance future is
Stevan Harnad wrote:
The rate of new OA journal start-ups is not likely to increase
substantially, because the literature is already journal-saturated,
and there are few new journal niches. Most OA journal growth is hence
likely to come from the conversion of existing TA (toll-access)
This may be a fairly dumb question, but recently I've read some posts
about publishers who are blue or gold or some other color. I'm finding
myself very confused by all this color business. Is there a standard
list that describes what the various colors represent? Is it fairly
new? I've been
It's only now that I found some time to react.
Stevan's statement below makes his position clear, at least to me. Stevan is
like the son who tells his friends that cars are practically for free. The
only thing that you have to do is beg your father to buy you one.
Rightly so!
The point is I am
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, Waaijers, Leo wrote:
May I stretch your argumentation a little, just to find out if I understand
you well?
Would you say: no matter who pays the publication costs and how high they
are, as long as the publication is not at the cost of the reader an open
access
I fully agree with David Goodman that clarity of terminology is needed
(whether or not we can agree on 'standard' terminology).
Below an attempt to clarify some terms. It goes without saying that
constructive suggestions for further clarification or for better terms are
welcomed.
At BioMed
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Jan Velterop wrote, under the subject thread
What is Open Access?:
I fully agree with David Goodman that clarity of terminology is needed
Jan Velterop's terminology is welcome, but please note that the
subcategories he introduces below are all merely subdivisions among
Stevan,
You say: No matter who pays the publication costs and how high they are, as
long as the publication is not at the cost of the user or the user's
institution, an open access protagonist is satisfied.
I think that 'user' is synonym for 'reader' in your statement. OK? But,
normally, readers
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Waaijers, Leo wrote:
As someone must bear the costs, this someone must be the author's
institution then. However, in many a case this is the same institution as
the reader's. So, at the end of the day the financial effects of both
approaches (toll gate, or 'open
In our discussions of OA, I feel there is a need for better terminology
to distinguish between the arXiv-like database or repository model,
in any of its modifications, and the two types of journals those paid
at the reader end, and those paid for at the journal-production end.
For
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, David Goodman wrote:
In our discussions of OA, I feel there is a need for better terminology
to distinguish between the arXiv-like database or repository model,
in any of its modifications, and the two types of journals those paid
at the reader end, and those paid for at
The use of codes in your reply is _exactly_ what I am protesting about.
BOAI-2 (gold): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
BOAI-1 (green): Otherwise, publish your article
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, David Goodman wrote:
The use of codes in your reply is _exactly_ what I am protesting about.
BOAI-2 (gold): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, David Goodman wrote:
In our discussions of OA, I feel there is a need for better terminology
to distinguish between the arXiv-like database or repository model,
in any of its modifications, and the two types of journals: those paid
at the reader end, and those paid for at
Dr.Vinod Scaria wrote:
funded and have no paying involved at either ends (reader or author). The
Calicut Medical Journal http://www.calicutmedicaljournal.org funded
by the Calicut Medical College Alumni Association and Internet Health
http://www.internet-health.org funded by the CCMIR belong
Stevan,
May I stretch your argumentation a little, just to find out if I understand
you well?
Would you say: no matter who pays the publication costs and how high they
are, as long as the publication is not at the cost of the reader an open
access protagonist is satisfied?
Leo Waaijers.
Suhail A. Rahman wrote:
1. We have a problem with accessing the scientific literature due to
access tolls that make it unreachable for all
On this we all seem to agree. Let us call it the Immediate Access Problem.
2. To alleviate this problem the OA initiative says there are two
Stevan Harnad wrote:
Hence the OA Journal (Golden) Road to OA is too small, slow
and uncertain as the *sole* solution to the Immediate Access
Problem. Fortunately, there is also another, parallel Road, a larger,
faster and surer one, the (Green) Road to OA: that of continuing to
publish one's
Suhail A. R wrote:
I finally understand what you imply by the green road to OA. But this then
brings up one general one personal question:
1. Generally, lets face the fact, I found out specifics about the green
road to OA from this forum. Few in the research world take it seriously
It was very interesting to see some publishers' reactions to OA 1 2
at a meeting I attended recently. The discussion I was present for came
down clearly on the side of Open Archives as a preferable (and stable)
way forward, even describing it as a safety valve on an overheated
system. My
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Les Carr wrote:
It was very interesting to see some publishers' reactions to OA 1 2
at a meeting I attended recently. The discussion I was present for came
down clearly on the side of Open Archives as a preferable (and stable)
way forward, even describing it as a safety
That's right. The difference between the actual 7.5%% and the bottom-line
55% (i.e., those who could self-archive today already having the
journal's official blessing) is the minimum. In reality, though, much
closer to 100% could be self-archiving, leaving the gap between what is
immediately
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Steve Hitchcock wrote:
The authors of this viewpoint in the Lancet seem to have got OAI and
Eprints.org muddled:
The Open Archives Initiative (http://www. openarchives.org) aims to create
a global online archive of all published research and is funded by the
Joint
From: Alastair Dryburgh
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 04:00
To: Sally Morris
Subject: Protocols for Metadata Harvesting
I continue to think about things like ParaCite being a catalyst in the move
towards open access. Are you aware of any estimates of how much of the
recent literature
A glib response to the STM publishers' statement (below) as far as open
access is concerned would be: so no news there, then. But it raises more
important issues.
First, it is right to recognise the remarkable progress that journal
publishers have made in becoming digital in the last decade or
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:
Thanks very much Gopal. Please forward it to Stevan Harnad, Leslie Chan,
Peter Suber and opther champions of Open Access. This is probably the first
newspaper editorial on this topic from India. Or did Times of India write
about it?
Thanks to
[This is the reply to a science writer for a forthcoming article on
open access.]
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, [identity deleted] wrote:
1) What do you see as the most important reason to allow open access to
journals?
There are a number of non-reasons, or side-reasons:
Dear Stevan Harnad
Many thanks for your email in response to the editorial on communicating
science in an electronic era.
We have posted it on our letters to the editor page
(http://www.scidev.net/EditorLetters/) and have also taken the opportunity
to post it on a special section of the website
Dear Katie Mantell:
As you requested, I have transmitted widely your announcement about
SciDevNet's coverage of open access:
http://www.scidev.net/ms/open_access/
As you also ask for my comments, Here they are:
(1) The SciDevNet's coverage is very helpful and welcome, but at the
moment it is
46 matches
Mail list logo
