Re: The House of Cards

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

No conflict, David.  The original post was edited before 
publication.  There is simply no evidence to assume anything 
about OA or anything else at this point.  No conclusions can be 
drawn. Joe Esposito

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:25 PM, David Prosser <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk

> wrote:

> JE:  Precisely:  it's too soon to make any judgments.
> JE: The OA promise--more and better--is being replaced with the reality.
>
> *****
>
> Hi Joe
>
> Which of those two statements do you believe?  I can't see how one could
> hold them both to be true simultaneously.
>
> David C Prosser
> SPARC Europe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J. Esposito
> Sent: 05 August 2008 21:58
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: The House of Cards
>
> Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>>But the trouble is that apart from astrophysics and high energy
> physics, no other field has anywhere near 100% OA: It's closer to
> 15% in other fields. So apart from a global correlation (between
> the growth of OA and the average length of the reference list),
> the effect of OA cannot be very deeply analyzed in most fields
> yet.
>
> ****
>
> JE:  Precisely:  it's too soon to make any judgments.
> Therefore, there is also no reason to conclude that there is an
> "open access advantage."
>
> Professor Harnad, like other OA activists, is watching as the OA house of
> cards collapses.  The OA promise--more and better--is being replaced with
> the reality.
>
> Joe Esposito