Re: Fwd: US University OA Resolutions Omit Most Important Component

[Mark Funk <mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu>]

Well, so much for the need to educate anybody about what is good for them:
about a proper diet, exercise, drinking in moderation, and the like. If
they knew what was good for them, they'd already do it, right? This
philosophy alone will save millions in health education.  (Although I do
have worries about the health of the nation...)  Seriously, when brand new
things appear, people need to be educated about them. Busy researchers are
busy doing research. They have submitted papers the same way for years or
decades. They don't think about it any more. OA and IRs are a new way, and
most researchers are still unaware of them.

As far as authors getting peer-review, editing, etc., for free: Journal
publishers have been getting manuscripts free from authors for centuries.

Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Weill Cornell Medical Library
1300 York Avenue
New York, NY 10021
mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu

At 12:01 AM -0400 5/10/05, Lisa Dittrich wrote:
> Someone finally said it!
>
> I love all the rhetoric about faculty not "knowing what's good for them"
> and how they simply have to be "educated" about the virtues of OA and IRs. 
> Baloney.  If it was of value to them, they'd know, and they'd do.
>
> Publishers, can we please stop kowtowing? Please?  If an author doesn't
> want to sign a copyright form, doesn't want to pay subscription fees,
> etc., then he/she can and should "publish" online in an OA journal or in
> and IR or on a blog.  Don't ask me for peer-review, editing, etc., not to
> mention the imprimatur of my journal's name (earned over decades) FOR
> FREE.