On 29 Dec 2013, at 01:18, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote:
> (2) And once they become big and successful one is also struck by how the
> differences between the OA publishers and the subscription publishers shrink
> (both for for-profit OA publishers like Springer/BMC and not-for-profits like
> PLoS).
In what way, Stevan? Isn't the only difference that truly counts for open
access that they publish only 'born' open access articles? (PLOS and BMC; not
the other Springer divisions). Or is it success itself you have something
against? Or that they provide a 'gold' route to open access?
By the way, their 'gold' OA publishing is completely compatible with 'green',
in that the final articles they publish can be deposited in any repository,
very easily, without embargo or any other restrictions. And that they can be
text- and data-mined without having to ask prior permission. And re-used
otherwise, even commercially, without having to ask prior permission.
So what's your beef? (Sorry, I know you're a vegetarian, to which I am
sympathetic.)
Jan
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
