Re: PLoS Financial Analysis

[Jan Velterop <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

Joe is right, of course. All the more reason for publishers to 
properly incorporate OA in publishing models, such as PLoS's and 
Springer's Open Choice.

Jan Velterop

On 1 Jul 2006, at 01:12, Joseph Esposito wrote:

> Tony, this is apples and oranges.  Of course peer review and 
> editing add value.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is . . . oh, I 
> don't know; probably the member of an Open Access sect.  But to 
> assert that the line between submission, including simple 
> posting (aka self-archiving) and publication is narrowing is to 
> state the empirical fact, not to advocate it. Copies of 
> articles are slipping out of their authorized copyrighted 
> containers everywhere.
>
> Here is an experiment worth doing.  Take the highest-ranked 
> articles that are at least one year old from each major 
> journals publisher and Google around.  How many can be found in 
> some form (preprints, working papers, final papers, etc.)? 
> And maybe you can get the assistance of the U.S. intelligence 
> service to identify all the attachments to private emails that 
> one researcher sends to another.  This is not the OA of the 
> advocates; nothing here Varmus or even Harnad would much care 
> for.  This is Shawn Fanning's OA:  Napster, peer-to-peer, no 
> central authority.  OA is a fait accomplis.  Please don't shoot 
> the messenger.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>
> On 6/29/06, Mcsean, Tony (ELS) <T.Mcsean@elsevier.com> wrote:
> > It may not be true of all physics and mathematics either.
> > Earlier this year at an ICSTI meeting I heard an eminent
> > crystallographer say during a plenary discussion that in 40 years
> > as author, reviewer and editor he had never known a paper that
> > hadn't been significantly improved by peer review and editing.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > Tony McSean
> > Director of Library Relations
> > Elsevier