On 2015-06-01, at 4:10 PM, Michael Eisen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Nobody is insisting on perfect solutions - none of the current solutions are even close to perfect - but what Heather was proposing was a change in goals. There is nothing to be gained - and a lot to lose - by redefining what we mean by open access (and thereby what we are trying to achieve) in order to wrap its umbrella around every imperfect effort to achieve it. To be clear, my purpose in this particular series has nothing to do with changing goals or redefining OA. Not that I don't think this should be discussed, rather I want to separate the topics. My point on inclusivity has to do with the people who are working to make access as open as they can under their circumstances, not the technicalities of what constitutes the ideal open access. The editor of a journal that would love to be fully OA but doesn't see how the journal can survive without subscription revenue so goes for delayed open access is not an enemy of open access. best, Heather
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
