One would hope that knowledgeable contributors would please refrain from criticizing  âpublishersâ as a group ... as though there were no differences in their policies towards academics. Â
 The stark contrast between the  policies of the American Physical Society, for example, and many commercial publishers is so transparently obvious that I need say no more.   Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 [email protected] http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm  From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:52 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Scholarly Publishing: Where is Plan B?   On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Richard Poynder <[email protected]> wrote: > To the intense joy of OA advocates, Elsevier announced Monday that it has > withdrawn its support for the controversial US Research Works Act. I find no joy in progressing from the presently unacceptable position to a worse one and then back to square one. The only "progress" is to discover even more clearly that publishers are institutionally anti-academic and anti-reader so that the few of us who fight for basic rights have clearer evidence. I take no joy in the total silence of organised academia - not a squeak of comment and support from any major university or library leader.   [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
