On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:21:47PM +0100, Sally Morris wrote:
> There have been various comments on our Association's reaction to the
> Budapest Open Access Initiative. Our response seems to have been
> somewhat misunderstood: we do not oppose initiatives which advocate the
> widest possible access to information - far from it, since dissemination
> is part of the mission of most of our member societies. However, we
> believe that it is essential that a business model is first found which
> will pay for all the elements which researchers value. Contrary to
> Stevan's view, researchers - as authors and as readers - do value very
> highly the whole spectrum of functions which publishers traditionally
> perform, and not just peer review itself. Our latest, recently
> completed, research study established very high ratings for all of the
> following (listed in order of importance): management (as distinct from
> execution) of the peer review process; selection of relevant and
> quality-controlled content; gathering articles together to enable
> browsing of relevant and quality-controlled content; content editing
> and improvement of articles; language or copy-editing; checking of
> citations/adding citation links; and (even) marketing (maximising
> visibility of journal). Respondents predominantly believe that
> libraries should continue to pay for these processes in some way, and
> clearly more thinking and experimentation is urgently needed both on
> viable alternative business models, and on the potential migration path
> towards these. Interestingly, other than in physics, respondents mostly
> had little or no idea what we meant by preprint or eprint archives.
> The full results of the study, Authors and Electronic Publishing, will
> be available for sale very shortly and details will appear on our
> website, http://www.alpsp.org
>
> One small clarification - Bernard Lang was under the impression that
> members only permitted free archival access to authors. This is not
> what I meant; a growing number of our member publishers make their
> online archival volumes freely accessible to all after a certain period.
on their own archive ? ...
and what is that period ?
publishers' archives is not enough for me ... first, how do I know
these archives will stay open the day W decides I am part of the evil
axis ?
Yes this is politics ... all we are talking about is also
politics, even when we do not say so.
I want literature to move around. To be indexable, searchable,
processable by anyone, with whatever tool one choses.
and experimentation on new models, not just business but also
alternatives on all the steps of the scientific publishing activity
is only possible if the litterature is freely accessible and movable.
I do care, very much, about the referreeing process. But I do
believe that numerisation allows many interesting variants that should
be experimented with (and how can I do that if recent papers are not
accessible). And the same goes for any other step you care to
consider.
Cordialement
Bernard
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris, Secretary-General
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>
> Phone: 01903 871686 Fax: 01903 871457 E-mail: sec-gen_at_alpsp.org
> ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org
>
> Learned Publishing is now online, free of charge, at
> www.learned-publishing.org
--
Non aux Brevets Logiciels - No to Software Patents
SIGNEZ http://petition.eurolinux.org/ SIGN
Bernard.Lang_at_inria.fr ,_ /\o \o/ Tel +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Fax +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
Received on Wed Apr 10 2002 - 21:51:59 BST