On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Barry Mahon wrote:
>sh> Consumer-theft technology has no connection with or implications
>sh> for open access to the refereed research literature, which is an
>sh> author give-away. It would be better for both causes to keep them
>sh> as separate as possible.
>
>On the contrary I feel Allen has a point, which OA could maybe benefit
>from. If I understand the iTunes concept it enables one to pick (and pay
>for) the mix you want, like a sweet (candy) counter, not have to buy a
>compilation decided by a CD producer (a music house, sort of equivalent
>to a publisher?). OA users might want the same facility.
Nothing of the sort. Pick your poison: Subscription, License, or
Pay-Per-View (S/L/P): All are just variants forms of toll-access, the
antithesis of open access. Mix-and-Match is a variant of P, just as the
Big Deal is just a variant of L. Caveat emptor.
But researchers need to pay no attention whatsoever to these various
goings-on in the S/L/P-sector. They should merely (1) publish their
articles in suitable open access journals when they exist (5%) and
otherwise (95%) (2) publish their articles in suitable toll-access and
make them open-access by self-archiving.
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: Complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Posted discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
Dual Open-Access Strategy:
BOAI-2: Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal
whenever one exists.
BOAI-1: Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access
journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
Received on Tue Oct 28 2003 - 15:54:44 GMT