RE: PLoS Financial Analysis

["Mcsean, Tony (ELS)" <T.Mcsean@elsevier.com>]

It may not be true of all physics and mathematics either. 
Earlier this year at an ICSTI meeting I heard an eminent 
crystallographer say during a plenary discussion that in 40 years 
as author, reviewer and editor he had never known a paper that 
hadn't been significantly improved by peer review and editing.

Tony


Tony McSean
Director of Library Relations
Elsevier

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Banks
Sent: 29 June 2006 00:06
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: PLoS Financial Analysis

"...the line between submission and publication continues to narrow."

While this may be true in physical sciences and mathematics, it is
definitely not true of medicine (the subject that drives much of OA). In
medicine, there is zero acceptance of the kind of successive approximations
model of publishing of which arXiv is an example.

Thus, for medicine at least, Sally is on target. OA is a money pit.

On 6/27/06 9:20 PM, "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com> wrote:

> The primary exception to Sally's comment would be OA journals that
> charge for author submissions, not author publications.
> With the Internet in its Web 2.0 incarnation, the line between
> submission and publication continues to narrow.  I have been waiting
> for arXiv to introduce this policy (as it should).
>
> Joe Esposito
>