Yes, be patient!!! Dr. Shu-Kun Lin Publisher of MDPI journals President of MDPI MDPI AG Postfach, CH-4005 Basel, Switzerland Office Location: Klybeckstrasse 64, CH-4057 Basel, Switzerland Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 (office) Fax +41 61 302 8918 Mobile: +41 79 322 3379; Skype: mdpibasel-lin E-mail: l...@mdpi.com Company homepage: http://www.mdpi.com My homepage: http://www.mdpi.org/lin
On 15.08.2015 00:33, Hélène.Bosc wrote: > Dear Lucie, > > How lucky you are to write a fluent and perfect English! > You are able to defend easily your point of view on the list and I hope that > after this first message, you will dare to participate to the discussion > about OA itself. > In you message you have decided to break your silence in being the advocate > of a newcomer. In my bad english on my turn, I will try to be the advocate > of the ancient members of the list. > I participate to this list since its creation in 1998 and I can tell you > that when a subject is discussed in 2015, it has often been discussed more > than 10 times before. > And when it is about a "new" terminology, it's really boring because it has > been discussed more than 100 times and we know that it does not help to the > OA progress. > In reading the exchanges that seem like a very old tune, some can have a > resigned sight, others can put the message in the trash with anger, some can > say : "This time, it's too much: I leave the list" and others like Stevan > can burst out! > We are numerous and we are all different. > Be patient Lucie, be patient Nicolas! > > Hélène Bosc > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lucie Burgess" <lucie.burg...@bodleian.ox.ac.uk> > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal@eprints.org> > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 7:33 PM > Subject: [GOAL] Re: libre vs open - general language issues > > > Dear Stevan and all > > I am very engaged by the GOAL open access list and I find reading it > informing, educating, stimulating, and inspiring by turn. The debate it > engenders is laudable. > > But I have never posted to the list. May I say I thought this comment > below was a rather inappropriate way to treat someone who is new to the > list and to the debate and who wishes to engage with it. > > Please, can we treat people with respect in responding to the comments > they make, and avoid making sarcastic comments which I feel are unhelpful. > The debate will be richer and hopefully better informed by having a > welcoming and inclusive approach. Not everyone is as knowledgeable about > the history of open access or the issues as Stevan - surely we would do > better to change that by fostering a mutually supportive approach? > > Response such as this one below, are one of the reasons I read the list > but am discouraged from posting to it. On this occasion I have been > tempted out of my shell! > > Best wishes, > Lucie > > > Lucie Burgess > Associate Director for Digital Libraries > Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford > Clarendon Building, Broad Street, Oxford > Senior Research Fellow, Hertford College > Tel: +44 (0)1865 277104 > +44 (0)7725 842619 > Twitter @LucieCBurgess > LinkedIn LucieCBurgess > > > > > > > On 14/08/2015 17:28, "Stevan Harnad" <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Perhaps it¹s time for our newcomer, Nicolas Pettiaux, to stop posting for >> a while and do a little reading to inform himself about OA and its (short) >> history. Otherwise he is just making us recapitulate it for him. >> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Nicolas Pettiaux <nico...@pettiaux.be> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear >>> >>> I appreciate these discussions and clarifications. For me, and for most >>> people who are nex to the subjects and I meet, "Gold open access" and >>> "green open access" are confusing terms, even though they have been >>> used >>> for a long time in official documents. >>> >>> Green refers to nature and gold to expensive. What else for newcomers >>> (= >>> most people in fact) ? >>> >>> And nature is not necessarily cheap, while gold is most of the time >>> expensive. >>> >>> What is "cheap open access" ? By cheap open access, I mean the full >>> price of publishing a work (most of the time online only) in such a way >>> that its overal price be as low as possible and ONLY reflect the actual >>> costs ? >>> >>> The best method I can think of is forget about ANY journals, and >>> consider as "publication quality paper" a work that is published >>> anywhere online, be it on an institutional (open) repository or any >>> website. Stop counting papers but only refer to their quality as >>> measured for example effective evaluation of a committee made of human >>> beings and not anymore by any accounting technique. Yes, this would >>> suppose that on a per document base, or per person base, a committee >>> would have to do actual work. But this is done already for most grant >>> attribution or tenure selection processes. Maybe not yet by the actual >>> reading of the papers and comments about his own papers an authors >>> would >>> write. >>> Comments on a public website where the paper is published could also be >>> taken into account in the evaluation. >>> >>> Many people agree today to consider that the peer review system does >>> not >>> work anymore due to a too large number of submitted papers and a too >>> large number of journals/reviews. >>> >>> Is there any other solution than dumping the reviews, the journals, the >>> papers as they are evaluated and listed today ? I am not the one >>> proposing this . I have discussed the subject with Pierre-Louis Lions, >>> a >>> famous French mathematician, professor at the College de France and >>> president of the board of the Ecole Normale supérieure who mentioned >>> such a procedure he would appreciate and support. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Nicolas >>> >>> -- >>> Nicolas Pettiaux, phd - nico...@pettiaux.be >>> Open@work - Une Société libre utilise des outils libres >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> GOAL mailing list >>> GOAL@eprints.org >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
