[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Monopolies in publishing
- To: <jan@biomedcentral.com>, <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- From: "Terry Hulbert" <terry.hulbert@iop.org>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 19:19:31 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Hmm, I knew I'd regret this :-) >>...they are preprints without a journal 'label sown into them', and in >>the journals they obviously have this 'label'. << Methinks you're being just a tad disingenuous here, Jan. The difference between these two manifestations of the article isn't just a 'label'. It's a label that's been through a process - peer-review This is the key difference, I guess - although not the only one. Maybe this is worth paying for? The only difference between BMC and the vast majority of other publishers is who's paying for this. And, as is often pointed out, how much is being paid. Terry Hulbert >>> Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com> 07/11/03 12:19pm >>> Terry, You're absolutely right. In physics, articles do seem to exist in two places. But they're not exactly the same. In Archiv, they are preprints without a journal 'label sown into them', and in the journals they obviously have this 'label'. The biggest puzzle to me is, too, why do large numbers of librarians fork out often substantial sums, basically just for the labels. Maybe the labels are worth it. Perhaps one of the librarians on this list might want to comment. Jan Velterop
- Prev by Date: WIPO to conduct meeting on open development models
- Next by Date: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- Previous by thread: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- Next by thread: RE: Monopolies in publishing
- Index(es):