[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re; Author Charges are not the only model for funding open access
- To: "Liblicense" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re; Author Charges are not the only model for funding open access
- From: "Sally Morris" <sec-gen@alpsp.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:06:16 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
I am beginning to perceive a concern that it will not be possible - at least for those (many) journals with far more readers than authors (e.g. in the applied sciences, clinical medicine etc) - for a 'author (or author's institution/funder) pays' model to add up to the benefit of the scholarly research community. We have now heard a number of research-intensive institutions commenting that they think they would end up paying more than at present - and I think the reason for this is that there will be a great many 'free riders' who currently pay subscriptions/licences (industry, notably pharmaceutical companies, being foremost among these) I wondered what other people think about this - perhaps the sums will simply not add up for this kind of journal? Of course, this is one of the many questions we hope to answer in our forthcoming data analysis study... Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Phone: +44 (0)1903 871686 Fax: +44 (0)1903 871457 E-mail: chief-exec@alpsp.org ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fytton Rowland" <J.F.Rowland@lboro.ac.uk> > To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 6:13 PM > Subject: Re: Author Charges are not the only model for funding open access > > > I would be very pleased to learn of funding sources for Open Access > alternative to author charges. > > However, there is widespread agreement among those contributing to the > OA debate that the real costs associated with peer review need to be > covered from a reliable funding source. The examples given by Heather > Morrison do not self-evidently include a peer reeview process. Without > that, no suggested scholarly communication system will enjoy credibility > in the eyes of academia. > > Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK
- Prev by Date: RE: Foundation Directory access
- Next by Date: RE: UN Treaty Collection
- Previous by thread: UN Treaty Collection
- Next by thread: Cost of Open Access
- Index(es):