RE: The UK report, press coverage,...

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

It is unexpected to be told that "The mark is Open Access (OA). How we get
to that mark is of primary importance..."

The following discussion then explains that, if the press, or the
government, or other OA workers, or other scientists, suggest any method
of getting there other than his own, they must be confused or mistaken.

Indeed,the statement concludes: "OA is the end, and mandated
self-archiving is the means. That's what needs to be understood by
journalists, and that is the understanding that needs to be conveyed to
their readers."

I take this to mean that the author of the these statements is not in fact
interested in OA, but only in OA done his way, If, for example, a
government were prepared to fund OA journals instead, he would not
approve. If existing journals were to find that they could do better as OA
journals, he would not approve. If scientists became convinced to start
self-archiving without a mandate, he would not approve.

I accept anything workable. Even "mandated self-archiving." "But first get
the facts straight."  -- Stevan Harnad

Dr. David Goodman
dgoodman@liu.edu

The above posting was written for liblicense-l. Other lists should link 
to it, rather than copy.