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

Re: AAUP Statement on Open Access

Am I the only person on this list who wonders who it is that Professor Harnad is speaking to in these sort of utterances? All these instructions and moral exhortations read like the minister preaching to the saved souls.. This list (as I am sure the moderator would agree) is for debate. It is not a list centred on OA where argument seems to consist of this sort of ranting about where the true faith resides. A much more (apparently) moderate evangelist, Peter Suber, has made it clear that he wants all scholarly outputs to be OA including scholarly monographs. It is after all logical is it not?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:51 AM
Subject: AAUP Statement on Open Access

The AAUP Statement on Open Access says nothing more than what was already said in this Forum by Sandy Thatcher of AAUP: Some similar questions arise with monographs.


But the primary target of the OA movement is peer-reviewed journal articles, which are all author give-aways, written only for usage and impact, not for fees or royalties.

Not so for all (or even most) monographs.

And a monograph is a much bigger cost and investment for the
publisher than a journal articles.

Hence, though analogies there may be, on no account should the
straightforward momentum of OA self-archiving (of articles) be
held back by linking it with the complicated question of OA

And researchers' funders and employers can and should (and will)
mandate the OA self-archiving of all their fundees'/employees'
articles, but they certainly can't wont' and shouldn't mandate
that all their fundees'/employees' *books* must be self-archived!

Stevan Harnad