On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Jan Velterop wrote: >sh> open access through self-archiving can and will >sh> precede open access publishing and its accompanying >sh> change in business model. > > BioMed Central has no preference in this regard. Open access through > self-archiving is bound to stimulate open access publishing at source. The > very business model of BioMed Central supports self-archiving, or any other > kind of archiving or re-use of the articles published. All research articles > published in BioMed Central journals are truly Open Access.
So are all toll-access journal-articles that are self-archived! And that's the point: Open-access publishing is currently the 5% solution and self-archiving can provide immediate open access to the other 95%, rather than just waiting! > Definitely in a few decades, but most probably already within a few years > the open access model will be the prevailing one But, through self-archiving, universal open access can already prevail tomorrow: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ > The likelihood is that initially the authors > will be given the choice: pay and your article > will be open access, or don't pay and it will > stay behind access barriers. But that is *not* the only choice, nor the best or fastest one! Immediate, universal self-archiving is: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0000.html http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue28/minotaur/ Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html or http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Discussion can be posted to: [email protected]
