BioMed Central waives charges for those who cannot stump up the $500 and
make a reasonable case for that.
Jan Velterop
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Story [mailto:a.c.story_at_UKC.AC.UK]
> Sent: 10 January 2003 16:18
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
>
>
> I agree that there are distinctions to be made between the
> two systems,
> Fytton.
>
> What I object to is one system that charges for the ability
> to be "speak"
> dissing a system that charges for the right to "listen"( or
> perhaps more
> accurately, the right to produce and read accessible
> information)on the
> grounds that the former is in favour of open access and that
> the latter is
> not. Both are against it, albeit in different ways.
>
> Many researchers, academic and otherwise, in many parts of
> the world have
> lots worth saying, but simply cannot "stump up" $US500 each time that
> they --- and peer reviewers ----agree they have something
> worthwhile/important to say as the BioMed model requires.
> Sitting here in
> our well-funded universities in the US and Europe -- or well-founded
> compared to many parts of the world -- we tend to forget that
> many such
> researchers work at institutions where "of course" they don't
> have the funds
> to pay their staff for access to BioMed as a
> contributor...and not merely as
> a reader.
>
> Alan Story
> Kent Law School
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum
> [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]On Behalf Of Fytton
> Rowland
> Sent: Friday 10 January 2003 15:33
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
>
>
> Every information system has to be paid for somehow, since it has
> unavoidable costs. The only way that you can (appear to)
> charge nobody is
> to have some kind of operating subsidy from somewhere. In
> discussion and
> analysis, it is helpful, in my view, to make a clear
> distinction between
> systems that charge the creator of the information and
> systems that charge
> the reader (or their respective institutions, of course). So
> I find the
> rather negative comment below a bit unhelpful.
>
> Fytton Rowland.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Story" <a.c.story_at_UKC.AC.UK>
> To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
>
>
> > Yes, but speaking of "nothing new at all": how can BioMed
> claim to be the
> > "gold standard" and say it believes in "open access" when
> there is a flat
> > fee of US$500 ( a.k.a. the article-processing charge) for
> admission to the
> > "open access" club in the first place. BioMed's user-pay
> toll-gate has
> just
> > been moved further up the information superhighway.
> >
> > Alan Story
> > Kent Law School
> > Canterbury UK
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum
> > [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]On Behalf Of Jan
> > Velterop
> > Sent: Friday 10 January 2003 10:06
> > To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> > Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
> >
> >
> > I agree with Mike. Nature's new 'licence' is a
> > 'pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes' version of what Elsevier calls the
> > 'give-backs' and is nothing new at all, just a new PR
> exercise. Clever PR,
> > to be sure, but certainly nothing like the "[Nature]...again led the
> > planet's 20,000 peer-reviewed journals in introducing the
> optimal and
> > inevitable copyright policy for the online era..." as
> Stevan would have
> it.
> > For a start, the 90 or so peer-reviewed journals published by BioMed
> Central
> > have a copyright and licensing policy that can truly be
> seen as leading:
> > http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/license. No restrictions on
> > self-archiving and further dissemination whatsoever. That
> should be the
> > 'gold-standard', not Nature's feeble attempt to look good without
> delivering
> > any substance worth mentioning. Congratulating Nature for
> putting a new
> > gloss on basically an old stance seems unnecessary sycophancy to me.
> >
> > Decribing the new Nature licence as a 'gift horse' that shouldn't be
> looked
> > in the mouth (in one of Stevan's earlier messages on this
> topic) is giving
> > the wrong impression that the scholarly community should
> really sit back,
> be
> > patient, shut up, swim on, wait what's being given to them
> and then be
> > grateful for beads and mirrors. They should simply expect more from
> > publishing, and demand the right to self-determination of
> what can be done
> > with their articles. Besides, there would be no point in
> looking a dead
> > horse in the mouth anyway, apart from performing an autopsy.
> >
> > Of course, authors could always re-format their papers and flip into
> > 'subversive mode' again. They could always do that anyway,
> and Nature's
> new
> > formulation of their restrictions doesn't make that any different.
> >
> > There is a lot to be cheerful and optimistic about with
> regard to open
> > access, but Nature's copyright licence ain't amongst it.
> The question
> > remains, if Nature really permits self-archiving (which is
> what Stevan
> seems
> > to believe), why don't they make their research papers
> available in open
> > access or at least freely available after a short time (say
> a month or
> two)?
> > There's nothing to be lost for them that cannot be
> compensated by the
> gains
> > they could make from such a policy, in my view. Open access
> advocates
> should
> > keep up the pressure instead of relenting when offered a
> cigar from their
> > own box.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: 10 January 2003 03:32
> > > To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> > > Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Michael Eisen wrote:
> > >
> > > > NATURE: "How can I show my article to my colleagues? By
> > > sending a link
> > > > to the paper on your website. You may not distribute the
> > > PDF by email,
> > > > on listservs or on open archives. Please remember that
> > > although the
> > > > content of the article is your copyright, its
> > > presentation (i.e. its
> > > > typographical layout as a printed page) remains our
> copyright."
> > >
> > > That's just fine! Run the PDF through a PDF-to-HTML
> > > converter, reformat it
> > > trivially, and the layout is yours! (These details are
> > > utterly *trivial*,
> > > Mike, whereas the nontrivial, substantive part -- you may put your
> > > refereed postprint on the web -- is *all* that was ever needed!)
> > >
> > > But I do believe they must have stopped giving lawyers logic
> > > courses any
> > > more as part of their degree! "You may not distribute the PDF
> > > by email.
> > > Send a link to it on your website instead." Gimme a break!
> > >
> > > And "You may not put it in an 'open archive' but only on
> a personal
> > > website?" So my personal website is not allowed to be
> OAI-compliant?
> > >
> > > This is all papyrophilic juribabble based on defunct anlogies
> > > with bygone
> > > days and ways! It makes no sense. It is as
> technologically innocent
> > > as it is blissfully free of logic. How can anyone even
> pretend to take
> > > it seriously?
> > >
> > > "Your honour, the defendant's computer transferred this
> > > open-access document
> > > through the asynchronous sendmail protocol instead of synchronous
> > > HTTP: Throw the book at him please." (Not to mention
> that this level
> > > of monitoring would require something even more intrusive than the
> > > Patriot Act!)
> > >
> > > > If somehow authors construe this as a license to
> > > self-archive, that's great.
> > > > But lets not give Nature credit for something they have
> not done.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I think it's a very *good* strategy to give
> > > Nature full
> > > credit for what they have done -- to encourage the other
> journals to
> > > hurry up and do likewise!
> > >
> > > Cheers (and cheer up!),
> > >
> > > Stevan
> > >
> >
> >
>
Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 17:36:10 GMT