Best,
Arthur
Dr Arthur Smith
Library REF Manager
Cambridge University Libraries
West Road
Cambridge
CB3 9DR
Email: as2...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:as2...@cam.ac.uk>
Telephone: +44(0)1223 766376
www.openaccess.cam.ac.uk<http://www.openaccess.cam.ac.uk/>
@CamOpenAccess<https://twit
ss. I know many of our colleagues in physics,
astronomy and mathematics will be extremely pleased with this announcement.
Best,
Arthur
Dr Arthur Smith
Deputy Head of Scholarly Communication (Open Access)
Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge C
be adding our
latest 2016/17 RCUK report shortly too. Our average APC (including 20% VAT)
is approx. £2000.
Best,
Arthur
Dr Arthur Smith | Open Access Service Manager | <mailto:as2...@cam.ac.uk>
as2...@cam.ac.uk | 01223 766376
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprin
I agree with Ross, concluding that Elsevier is a major OA publisher based on
number of journals is misleading, so I thought I’d try to come up with some
figures to address this.
After deconstructing Elsevier’s OA price list
(https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/j.custom97.pdf why
There is nothing preventing somebody from charging for a work provided
through a CC-BY or other CC license; however, the first person to
purchase such content then has the right (from the CC license) to
redistribute it freely, so in practice if any publisher tried to charge
it would be
. Though perhaps that's what you were implying by the power of
online boolean search, the need for tracking what has previously been
looked at (whether read or not) needs to be acknowledged.
Arthur Smith
Stevan Harnad wrote:
On 5-Oct-09, at 8:49 PM, Klaus Graf wrote:
2009/10/6 Stevan Harnad har
. Such things often are
revealed in peer review, so if these proceedings were subject to only skimpy
or no review there could easily be such problems. Do these OA proceedings
have any mechanism for authors to add corrections to their articles after
they have been posted?
Arthur Smith
Arthur
David Goodman wrote:
We all know that ongoing measurements
already show an almost total nonuse of conventional publications, print or
electronic, in one of the science subject areas.
Our high energy/particle physics journal (Phys. Rev. D) is serving out
10's of thousands of articles/month to
Stevan Harnad wrote:
To put it more directly, using software development language to make the
point: The developers of the code that constitutes a refereed research
paper do not, never did, and never could or would, write the code in
order to sell it, and get fees or royalties from its use.
Stevan Harnad wrote:
[concerning my speculations on what we would do if our journals no longer
had any control over presentation...]
It's my opinion that in this case Arthur's opinion does not
represent the APS (Marty?)...
Probably there are many different opinions here - it's not so much
David Goodman wrote:
[on my question of why we should want to be simply a contractor to
universities in assessment of their faculty?]
because, Arthur, the intellectual reputation and respectability of the
physicists who constitute your society is much greater than any commercial
--or
fashion, but it may take a long
time, and may never be complete.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
[]
Thus George Lundberg wrote:
The process and product being discussed has existed for aeons in the
pre-internet age and continues to fluorish electronically. There is a wide
appreciative audience. It is called Review Article or Journalistic
Report or
Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 Arthur Smith apsm...@aps.org wrote:
According to Stevan scholarly publishing has no analogue
Incorrect. It is refereed research (journal article) publishing
that has no analogue.
Ok, substitute refereed research (journal article) in my previous
of
information, but have become more and more reluctant to pay for
organizing that information into useful forms. Why is this? What's
behind it? Is it really true that publishers (such as the Minor Planet
Center) no longer provide any useful value?
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
I'm quite confident now that both free no-frills author-controlled
sites (like the arXiv) and standard frill-filled peer-reviewed
publishing can coexist, since they serve quite distinct purposes and in
some cases audiences. So no argument from me on Tim's # 2 or #3. But I
think there's a
is different in other areas?
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
Peter Suber wrote:
This article from The Chronicle of Higher Education
(http://chronicle.com) was forwarded to you from: pet...@earlham.edu
[...]
From the issue dated October 12, 2001
No Free Lunches: We
David Goodman wrote:
The publication of material in an free archival system will permit much
more open and effective review and comment than the present system does.
Permit perhaps - but will it actually happen? So much is published these
days that the vast majority is unlikely to ever receive
Jim Till wrote:
[...]
My proposed four main reasons why the primary research literature should
be freed were, in brief:
(1a) Information gap; (1b) Library crisis; (1c) Public property; and,
(1d) Academic freedom.
Re (1d): please bear in mind that a definition of the verb censor is
make
Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Arthur Smith wrote:
[...]
My
belief is that it is important that that responsibility be transferred
as far as it can be, from authors to more stable and identifiable
entities, so that the end-users of that information have a source for
whom
Stevan Harnad wrote:
[...]
(3) Podkletnov actually has an article published in a high-level
journal. It reports a cure for cancer (in reality bogus), involving
drugs that are in reality toxic and do not cure cancer.
[...]
Actually I think the worst possible case is:
(5) P. has
Stevan Harnad wrote:
Do you think the APS estimate is a better average for the 20,000+
refereed journals and their 2,000,000+ annual articles? (I am not
asking ironically: I really wonder how representative you think the APS
bottom line is. We are talking about averages here, after all, and
1 or 2 months previously.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
I've not been keeping track for a while, and for some reason the server
refused to recognize my registered email address. I'm hoping this will
go to the right place...
Stevan's lemma:
If you think you know an alleged obstacle to public self-archiving
-- let us call the obstacle X [X could
I think it's only fair to point out that Bloom was not completely negative about
E-biomed in his article - I quote the following from it:
Science and other journals are eager to identify the advantages of the
E-biomed proposal and are actively looking for changes that could benefit
scientific
All these arguments about self-archiving are wonderful, but creating and
maintaining material to be publicly accessible on the web has costs, and
finding appropriate material has costs to the reader, and one
really should be analyzing the total system costs for any scheme, not just
local costs for
On Wed, 12 May 1999 13:10:27 -0400, Thomas J. Walker t...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
wrote:
I submit that APA
S, not A!!! It's aps.org!
would be more fiscally responsible and be doing more for
facilitating the transition from the current user-pays system to a future
author-pays system by charging for
Apologies to Ginsparg and Harnad if I've taken their names in vain
in my classification system. But I think there really is a
sharp distinction between the systems II and III
which Harnad dismisses: under system II (Harnadian)
the literature is clearly always free to readers, because the
journal
On Fri, 7 May 1999 13:27:27 +0100, Stevan Harnad
har...@coglit.ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
[... discussion of multiple evaluation ...]
So the only way to implement page charges that does not tamper in any
way with classical peer review is to assess them only for accepted
papers (factoring in the
On Fri, 7 May 1999 11:51:16 -0400, Thomas J. Walker t...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
wrote:
Selling electronic reprints, so long as paper publication continues, can be
quite profitable (and thus fiscally responsible).
Well, I wasn't very clear in my reply on that - sorry. The reason
we can't sell
to be inevitable one way or another.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:50:59 -0400, ing...@dds.nl wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:29:49 -0400, Arthur Smith apsm...@aps.org wrote:
Several issues have been brought up on PDF vs SGML. It should be mentioned
that PDF is as open as PostScript.
I would personally be in favor of having some ML
Arthur Smith apsm...@aps.org:
Well, once again I think we've jousted long enough. One wouldn't think
from the tone, but I actually agree with a good part of Stevan's last
post, from which I can distill the following points:
1. We both agree that peer review is essential, and is the central
of their contributions.
Arthur Smith apsm...@aps.org
On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 05:32:38 -0400, Albert Henderson
noblestat...@compuserve.com har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk wrote:
My notes from editors' reports published in the Bulletin of the
American Physical Society indicate the following circulation
figures for nonmember sales of Physical Review:
I've been trying to understand why the 70% vs 30% issue is so
important here - it means only a factor of two, and different
journals (with their different standards and overheads, and profits
in some cases) have several factors of two differences in costs now.
But I think I see Harnad's reasoning
more restrictive agreements, some less, and of
course it will be up to authors to decide what they are willing to live
with. But government mandates on the issue are unlikely to be helpful.
Arthur Smith apsm...@aps.org
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:20:19 +1000, Tony Barry to...@netinfo.com.au wrote:
At 11:39 PM 1998/08/31, Stevan Harnad wrote:
To put it really starkly: Ultimately the prestige of refereed journals
depends on the referees, and they are in the pay of neither the
publisher nor the author in EITHER model.
are the ones most
likely to have the momentum and capital resources to take full
advantage. And, like in other areas of the economy, the new efficiences
will eventually play themselves out in lower prices and costs for all.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
PS I attempted to change the subject heading because
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:45:02 -0400, Thomas J. Walker t...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
wrote:
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org): Might e-reprints be a way to evolve into
free access in an all-electronic future? Authors (or their institutions or
grants) would get used to paying for immediate toll-free access
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 14:47:24 -0400, Christopher D. Green chri...@yorku.ca
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote:
It is all well and good to say of course peer review will be available,
but peer review is expensive and the model you have proposed for a journal
based on the xxx
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:40:16 -0400, Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
wrote:
There are of course many other electronic-only journals, but they own
the content in the traditional manner, and do the distribution
themselves.
Correct. But if free, they have nothing to lose (and a good deal
42 matches
Mail list logo
