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

RE: May issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter

Hi All

No, I'm sure there's some corruption, so it's not that clear-cut. 
But the potential for corruption depends on the individuals 
involved, not on whether or not the journal is OA, author-pay, 
traditional, or any any model.

I guess we all bring personal experience to the table, but we 
have to have more than that to argue for wide-spread corruption.



Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: May issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
> From: Laval Hunsucker <amoinsde@yahoo.com>
> Date: Tue, May 18, 2010 7:39 am
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> So clear-cut, in the big real world out there, seriously?
> It might be nice, but isn't nearly the case, is my experience.
> Do I detect some slightly rose-colored glasses here?
> - Laval Hunsucker
> Knokke, Belgie
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ken Masters <kmasters@ithealthed.com>
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 6:15:49 AM
> Subject: RE: May issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
> Hi All
> Pippa makes the all-important point that decisions to accept or
> reject papers are made by editors, not publishers.  It is this
> point that is conveniently forgotten when critics of author-pay
> OA journals accuse those journals of accepting anything, just to
> increase their revenue. Even in the author-pay model, the
> decision to accept is made by the editor; the money goes to the
> journal, not to the editor.
> Regards
> Ken