[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Open Letter about OA to the Royal Society by Fellows of the Royal Society
- To: AmSci Forum <american-scientist-open-access-forum@amsci.org>
- Subject: Re: Open Letter about OA to the Royal Society by Fellows of the Royal Society
- From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:30:26 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Marc Brodsky wrote:
> I would say a careful reading of the two statements show more balance
> and openness in the RSC statement than in the response letter cited
> below by Harnad. I would suggest that we explore new venues for
> dissemination of information before first setting out to undermine
> successful existing ones. If the new venues work for authors and
> readers, we will not need government imposed mandates to make them
> happen.
>
> Marc H. Brodsky
> Executive Director and CEO E-mail: brodsky@aip.org
> American Institute of Physics Phone: (301) 209-3131
> One Physics Ellipse Fax: (301) 209-3133
> College Park, MD 20740-3843
Having just returned from the DASER meeting in College Park, MD, where the
two physics Learned Societies, the American Physical Society (APS) and the
Institute of Physics, took an incomparably more supportive and
collaborative position on both open access and self-archiving (and the AIP
rep just sat in glum silence throughout), I find this regressive statement
from AIP (the separate publisher affiliate of APS), parroting the familiar
party line of STM, ALPSP and the first RS statement, especially
instructive. It speaks volumes about the real underlying conflict of
interest here, and no doubt within the Royal Society too, where it was
clearly the publishing tail wagging the royal pooch in formulating,
without consultation, a statement so dissociated from the best interests
of the RS's members. The RS's shame will be mitigated, once the head
reasserts sovereignty over its tail. Fortunately, the tail of the APS is
not even attached to its body...
DASER 2 IR Meeting and NIH Public Access Policy (Dec 2005)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/50-guid.html
Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society (Nov 2005)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4938.html
Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal (Aug 2005)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4716.html
Open Letter to Research Councils UK: Rebuttal of ALPSP Critique (Aug 2005)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/18-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
- Prev by Date: RE: Graphing the Bergstrom and McAfee Journal Pricing Data
- Next by Date: Re: Open Letter about OA to the Royal Society by Fellows ofthe Royal Society
- Previous by thread: Open Letter about OA to the Royal Society by Fellows of the Royal Society
- Next by thread: Re: Open Letter about OA to the Royal Society by Fellows of the Royal Society
- Index(es):
