[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: US University OA Resolutions Omit Most ImportantComponent


Asking an author to make a copy of an article openly accessible is not
synonymous with asking publishers not to seek return on their investment.  
The experience in physics is that self-archiving preprints - 100% in some
areas of physics - has not had an impact on subscriptions.

Subscription subsidy is seen as one potential means of funding for ongoing
open access.  This is one of the topics being discussed recently on the
SPARC Open Access Forum.  For a recent message, and link to Brian
Simboli's blog on the subscription / open access options, see

a personal view by,

Heather Morrison

On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:50:37 EDT liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu wrote:
> That's fine.	We could (1) kill the publishing industry entirely and do
> what the Dutch have done (obviously not something I want or even something

> I think is good or in the public interest necessarily, but it's a real
> option) and just make big repositories of content or (2) create, as some
> have clearly suggested but which I believe are unrealistic, alternative
> sources of funding publication through author/institution/funder pays
> models.
> I honestly do not see any other middle ground.  And there is a difference
> between forcing an author who has been given grant money to report back to

> an agency on what he/she has done (admittedly reasonable) and asking a
> publisher who has invested money to seek no return on that investment.
> Lisa Dittrich
> Managing Editor
> Academic Medicine
> 2450 N Street NW
> Washington,D.C. 20037
> lrdittrich@aamc.org (e-mail)
> 202-828-0590 (phone)
> 202-828-4798 (fax)
> Academic Medicine's Web site: www.academicmedicine.org