2:25 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
At a severe risk of offending Stevan, I write to say that my University has
practised an almost-OA policy
I fully agree,
There would be no great harm done in the longer perspective if some of
the current major publishers dissapeared from the market, as long as the
access to older article in their electronic holdings are secured. They
would just be replaced by other. Academics need good journals
Stevan Harnad writes
It does not, because it is both arbitrary and absurd to cancel a journal
because it is Green rather than because their users no longer need it
It is not. There simply is not the money to buy all subscriptions, and
the more a journal's contents can be recovered from
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
-To: goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org
goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org
Date: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:53 AM
To: goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org
goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
Isn’t the fact that “The BIS report
Scholarly Communication UCL
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of Danny
Kingsley danny.kings...@anu.edu.au
Sent: 14 September 2013 08:39
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
...@eprints.org on behalf of
Danny Kingsley danny.kings...@anu.edu.au
*Sent:* 14 September 2013 08:39
*To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
*Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat'
does not exist.
The only
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
danny.kings...@anu.edu.au
Sent: 14 September 2013 08:39
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat'
does not exist.
The only 'evidence' to support the claim
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
My take on point I, Call for disruption would place a full stop after
evolve and leave the whole statement at that. But disruption we
certainly need, and both the Gold and Green roads can provide a fair bit
of it.
The gold road assumes that journals will always be needed. I hope they
will not,
13 matches
Mail list logo
