Jon Tennant writes > Every year, we waste billions of euros of taxpayers money on inefficient > systems with outrageous profit margins.
Not "we" waste. Subscription-purchasing librarians waste. I have been calling for subscriptions to be cut for many years only to be dismissed and ridiculed. But finally the tide is starting to turn. > The current model of scholarly publishing contains a disastrous blend of > Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance. Researchers are helplessly > locked into the system because of an over-reliance on journal brands for > their evaluations, including for promotion, grants and tenure. That has little to do with the expense of the current system. An over-reliance on journals could also happen in a system that is much less expensive. > I find it absurd that the most supposedly intellectual people in the > world cannot find an evaluation system better than this. There are many ways of being intellectual. I for one don't expect people who are experts in their own special area also to be experts on scholarly communication. > "Plan S" does not seem to make this situation better. I'm not closely following Plan S but I tend to agree. Open access has the risk of making commercial intermediation even more expensive than toll-gated access ever was. > We are continuing to actively work against efforts to return control of > publishing to the academic community. Who is your "we" here? -- 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
