[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: message to liblicense-l
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: message to liblicense-l
- From: "David Prosser" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:15:50 EST
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Sandy Remember that not only do private companies publish their own work directly, they also sponsor research within universities, much of which does get published. There is no reason why publication charges could not be included within the current 'overheads' that these companies pay when sponsoring university research. (Of course it could be argued that encouraging companies to make greater use of the fundamental research we fund as tax payers is a good thing. Perhaps it is worth investing a little more in the dissemination process to ensure that companies can get access to the latest research, develop new products, contribute to the economy, etc.) Best wishes David C Prosser PhD Director SPARC Europe E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.sparceurope.org -----Original Message----- [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher Sent: 28 February 2007 12:08 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: message to liblicense-l How is "political will" going to "redirect" the income stream that comes from private companies now in the form of subscriptions for their R&D departments when they will be "free riders" on a pure OA system? Sure, they'll be happy to pay fees for their own researchers to publish in STM journals, but my guess is that they pay a lot more into the system now than they would through author fees in an OA system. What kind of "political" solution is there to this potential problem of underfunding? Sandy Thatcher Penn State Press >Joe, > >I have to admit that I don't know what the precise definition is >of 'a lot' (neither do I know what Scrubs is or how you can turn >it off -- and perhaps we should keep it that way), but I think >we can safely state that for most articles there are more >readers than authors (some of the articles in Arxiv, with >hundreds of authors, may well be exceptions to this). The issue >is not so much that there are many readers 'out there' for most >articles, because there are most probably not, but the issue is >the assumption that all potential 'real' readers are at >institutions that have a subscription to the articles in >question and not 'out there' without access. > >The Shakespeare quote is very amusing, but isn't the question >more something like this: "If I pay for an insurance policy, >will I get an accident?" Precisely because you don't know you >take out insurance. Precisely because we don't know who can or >will read specific scientific research articles we ought to have >open access. > >We need to find a way for journals to provide economically >sustainable open access. The fact that we don't have open access >is a kind of 'collateral damage' of the traditional subscription >system. With the internet and its functionalities we can have >structural and economically feasible open access as soon as we >have enough political will to redirect the existing money >streams for scientific literature. Maybe political will is one >of those spirits that won't come when you call them. You may >have a point there. > >Jan Velterop
- Prev by Date: Re: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'
- Next by Date: Re: Challenge to "OA" Publishers Who Oppose OA Self-Archiving Mandates
- Previous by thread: Re: message to liblicense-l
- Next by thread: re: Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'