Alicia,
Some publishers are often criticised, you're right, and I agree that they
shouldn't be for just being an established scholarly publisher. And I don't
think they are as often as you perhaps assume. It is the policies and business
models that are criticised rather than the publishers per se. And you may have
noticed that the scientific community is often criticised as well, for moaning
and then doing what is not consistent with what they are moaning about, to put
it crudely.
I think that if a publisher, Elsevier, say, were to make all the journal
material available with delayed open access (CC-BY, fully re-usable and
mine-able) after a reasonable embargo period of a year (possibly 2 years in
certain slow-moving areas), that publisher might lose a few reprint sales, but
gain a fair amount of kudos as well. Of course it isn't the same as immediate
OA, but it would be an important step in the right direction. Would you consider
advising your corporate masters to do just that?
Anyway, there will be plenty of other steps in the right direction one can think
of, but this is the one that springs to mind immediately.
It really is the policies, not the publisher per se, though you will agree with
me that it is perhaps understandable that some specific policies are commonly
identified with specific publishers, and it is the publishers who make the
policies, of course.
Best,
Jan
On 11 May 2012, at 10:55, David Prosser wrote:
Hi Alica
There are a number of good examples.
In gold OA we have the example of PLoS, BMC, Hindawi, and hundreds of
other publishers who are showing the OA gold is a sustainable model.
In hybrid, we have publishers such as Springer who a) make obvious papers
where the author has paid a publication fee to make the paper OA and b)
publish the OA papers as CC-BY rather than retaining restrictive copyright
licenses. Â (On the flip side we have examples of publishers who have taken
payment under hybrid models and then have had to be chased to make the
papers freely available - those publishers really need to get their
processes in order).
In green, we have many, many good examples of clear and unrestrictive
policies that allow authors to self-archive. Â Particularly un-welcome are
those publishers who put in place complex restrictions, or whose policies
place authors in conflict with funder or institutional mandates.
I think we have wonderful examples of a wide range of publishers who have
embraced open access (in both its forms) and I don't believe that many of
us feel that publishers are exclusively a negative force in open access.
 Of course, some specific publishers have tried to be a negative force -
those that hire expensive PR lobbyists and paint open access as 'junk
science' for example. Â But thankfully such publishers are few and far
between.
Best wishes
David
On 11 May 2012, at 10:19, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
Hi all,
Â
Iâm glad weâre now moving our conversation on in new directions, and
Iâld like to suggest one which I hope will be productive. The
discussion on this list often seems to me be based on the assumption
that scholarly publishers are a wholly negative force in the open
access world, and a community to be avoided/undermined/mistrusted at
all costs. This feels unwarranted to me â and perhaps other
publishers on this list who are not so audacious as to stick their
heads over the parapet. So, knowing that positive messages are
powerful ways to influence:Â what positive things are established
scholarly publishers doing to facilitate the various visions for
open access and future scholarly communications that should be
encouraged, celebrated, recognized? Â
Â
With kind wishes,
Â
Alicia
Â
Â
Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5
1GB
P: +44 (0)1865 843317Â IÂ M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I
E:Â [email protected]Â I
Twitter: @wisealic
Â
Â
Â
Â
From:Â [email protected]Â [mailto:[email protected]]Â On
Behalf Of CHARLES OPPENHEIM
Sent:Â 11 May 2012 09:27
To:Â Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject:Â [GOAL] UK Defamation Bill and OA
Â
This has just been published
-see http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0005/13005.p
df. Â Clause 6 gives special protection against defamation actions to
peer reviewed scholarly articles (the first time peer review has
figured in a piece of legislation??). This is something that
scholarly publishers will no doubt pick up on as an argument against
unrefereed green OA.
Â
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Â
Â
Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, O
xford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales).
<ATT00001..txt>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
