[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):