Stevan- PLoS and BMC are open access publishers and thus have to be expected to put most of our effort into promoting open-access journals, just as you put most of your effort into promoting self-archiving. But PLoS (and, I should add BMC) have also supported self-archiving as well, and will continue to do so, whether or not you change the wording of this document.
I can't speak for PLoS on my own, but will run this by our board and staff and will pass any additional suggestions they have on to you. -Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stevan Harnad" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 12:51 PM Subject: Re: Draft letter for institutions to sign to implement Berlin > On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Michael Eisen wrote: > > > I don't want to reopen the argument about your 5%/95% division, but I don't > > think its appropriate or necessary to use these figures here. How about > > just: > > > > (8) New "open-access" journals recover their costs by charging the > > author-institution for each outgoing article they publish and making > > all published works freely and openly accessible from the moment > > of publication, instead of restricting access to subscribers > > > > (9) For articles for which no suitable open access journal exists, an > > alternative immediate solution to put an end to access denial and > > impact loss is for their authors to self-archive their full-texts online on > > their own institutional open-access websites for all would-be users > > worldwide. > > Mike, those changes seem reasonable, but I hope you will find it equally > reasonable that they be made only on condition that Public Library of > Science (PLoS) then officially supports and promotes the signing of this > statement to institutions in its own open-access promotional efforts. > > So far, both PLoS and BMC have been promoting only (8) and not (9) in > their negotiations with institutions, and it is for that very reason that > I have invoked the 5%/95% figure (which is fair and true -- but I agree > that we need not reopen that here): to make it clear that the far bigger > and faster means of providing immediate open access is being systematically > overlooked. > > I think it would be reasonable to dilute the statement by removing the > 5/95 contrast, but only if it will then be actively promoted by PLoS and > BMC. If it is diluted only to have PLoS and BMC continue to promote only > (8) unilaterally, and not (8) and (9) jointly, then I don't think the > interests of immediate open access will be served by diluting it in > this way. > > I know you cannot speak for BMC, but I am confident that if PLoS commits > to promoting this joint open-access provision strategy with institutions > instead of just promoting (8), then BMC will follow suit too. > > Best wishes, Stevan >
