On 15 Dec, 2003, at 12:24, Stevan Harnad wrote:
In response to:
sh> it would be helpful if Richard could consider
sh> and reply to the points made by Helene Bosc
sh> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3269.html both
sh> on the number of suitable journals of various kinds, and on the very
sh> important question of "consanguinity": Should there be many independent,
sh> competing journals, as now, or a few under the same roof, a possibility
sh> Jan Velterop of BioMedCentral has suggested? ("Why not just 250?")
sh> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3272.html
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Jan Velterop replied:
jv> For the record, I *never* said, suggested, or implied
jv> "under the same roof".
It would be very helpful if Jan could describe the topology of fitting
the 2,500,000 annual articles (which currently appear under 24,000
different roofs) under 250 roofs instead, while not fitting any subset
of them under the same roof? (Full context for the above quote
follows [at end]:)
A subset under the same roof? Sure. But that's not the same as the
either/or proposition you put in my mouth of "many independent,
competing journals, as now, or a few under the same roof"
jv> I fully agree with what Mike and Sally say. 'Numbers of journals'
jv> is a bad metric, as their sizes differ so dramatically. But
jv> what Mike brings up is very important. It's not the number of
jv> journals that count but the range of options to publish with
jv> open access. Why would the current universe of 25,000 toll access
jv> journals have to be replaced by 25,000 open access journals? Why
jv> not just 250? Or why not 50,000? It is the proportion of the
jv> literature that is available with open access that counts. Small
jv> now, but growing fast, and likely to reach a 'tipping point'
jv> in the foreseeable future.
