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

Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates

I fully agree with Stevan Harnad on the point below. Granting
agencies only have to mandate self-archiving. Period.

I remember too well the satisfied laughter of Derk Haank in
Frankfurt, over a year ago, when he announced with a visible
degree of glee that he enjoyed seeing new revenue streams coming
out of the granting agencies. He was thinking about "open choice"
then. Now, Elsevier increases the new revenue streams by taxing
granting agencies for the right to archive.

Granting agencies might consider using their money either for
research itself or, where no prominent green journals exist, to
help create competing gold journals.

Jean-Claude Guedon

These sums of money ought to support research

Le lundi 12 mars 2007 - 21:55 -0400, Stevan Harnad a ecrit:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Jan Velterop wrote:
>> The Howard Hughes deal is *not* a setback for open access, even
>> if it is not the greatest imaginable step forwards perhaps.
> It is not a setback for the minuscule number of articles for
> which HHMI will finance paid (Gold) OA. It is a setback for all
> the other articles that could be made (Green) OA through mandated
> author self-archiving, for free, while subscriptions are still
> continuing to pay the publication costs.
> It is not only a waste of money, but it plays into the hands of
> those who are trying to delay or derail Green self-archiving
> mandates at all costs.
>> To knock the HHMI for getting into this deal is short-sighted.
> It is HHMI that is being short-sighted (and gullible). HHMI
> ought instead simply to mandate Green OA self-archiving, and
> leave it at that.