Isn't the fact that The BIS report finds no evidence to support this
distinction, due to the fact that there isn't sufficient data?
I sense that we are going to have to live with (Green) OA and subscription
journals for some time ... and that it is the subscription model for
commercially
Hello,
I have prepared a novice type survey out of 10 questions (surveymonkey's
free limit). Please find the questions below and allow me to learn your
opinions about them.
1] Have you heard the concept, open access? How can one define the best
meaning of this concept?
2] Would you be
*ICAR adopts Open Access policy*
Today (13th September 2013) the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (
ICAR http://icar.org.in/en/node/6609) had announced its Open Access
policy on its website http://icar.org.in/en/node/6609.
The full-text of Open Access policy of the ICAR is follows:
ICAR
It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does not
exist.
The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open access
threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial publishers comes in
the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP survey
Hello,
The link in my previous e-mail is wrong, please find the links for DOC
and PDF version of that list below:
http://web.itu.edu.tr/~akkurtb/open_access/oa.doc
http://web.itu.edu.tr/~akkurtb/open_access/oa.pdf
The column titles are in Turkish, but the table is self-explanatory.
Some links
This is an excellent contribution from Danny Kingsley, and it would be
interesting to have some real information about subscription loss from
publishers, and not only from the two publishers she mentions. Very
occasionally we do hear stories about a few journals ceasing publication, but
the
There seem to be two incompatible arguments about the effect of Green OA:
1. That Green OA presents no threat to subscription publishing - see this
thread and frequent other posts.(DK: It is not that there is not
sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does not exist. )
2. Stevan Harnad's
A journal publishing 234 articles per year charging $30,860 for a subscription
SHOULD be disrupted, on the basis of price. At this rate it would cost 7 times
more to provide access to only the medical schools in North America than to
provide open access to everyone, everywhere with an internet
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
*PM-R: *Stevan Harnad's goal [is] that Green OA will destroy the
subscription market (
http://poynder.blogspot.ch/2013/07/where-are-we-what-still-needs-to-be.html)
My only goal is (and always has been) 100% OA: no
I find myself fully in full agreement with both Danny Kingsley and Fred
Friend.
In a previous message, I mentioned the PEER project funded by the
European Commission. The final report is available at
http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_PEER_Final_public_report_D9-13.pdf
.
Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
There seems to be two incompatible arguments about the effect of Green OA:
1. Green OA presents no threat to subscription publishing [...]
2. [...] Green OA will destroy the subscription market.
I've been struggling with the same dilemma for a long time, and much
I believe that Stevan is logically right on all counts, but one problem
remains that is not addressed here: people decide upon the behaviour on
the basis of a mixed bag of facts and conjectures. Facts are used to
constrain conjectures within the general perimeter of a risk analysis.
Each category
12 matches
Mail list logo
