Heather Morrison writes > Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs, not whether > the content is available for free.
Sure. > In April of last year Harvard sent a memo to faculty informing them > that they cannot continue to afford high priced journals and asking > them to consider costs when deciding where to publish. The memo can > be found here: > http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448 I don't see incentives for academics to comply with such a request. It would be more effective for universities to set up black lists of journals not review for. Academics then would have a better excuse not to review for journals that are high-priced, ultimately putting pressure on the quality of these journals. > This is not an open access issue, rather another issue that needs to > be addressed, and the drive for OA policy should not impede progress > on necessary market corrections. I beg to differ. The same euro can only be spent once. It can be spent to beef up the IR, or on subscriptions. > May I suggest that research funding agencies should look carefully > at the publishing record of academics (past, future plans, editing > etc.), and look at high-priced choices the way funding agencies and > committees in my area would look at grant submissions including > first-class airfares at many times the cost of available economy > airfares? Again, you can surely suggest this but I don't see why funding agencies would have incentives to take up your suggestions. -- Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
