For the record, I *never* said, suggested, or implied "under the same roof".
Jan Velterop
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 14 December 2003 15:01
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: Journals > Peer-Reviewed Journals > Open-Access
> Journals <
> Open Access
>
[cut]
> Regarding Richard's view on whether the existing 600
> open-access journals
> http://www.doaj.org/ (not all or even most of them biomedical
> journals)
> are indeed enough for most biomedical research output today,
> it would be
> helpful if Richard could consider and reply to the points
> made by Helene Bosc
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3269.html
> both on the number of suitable journals of various kinds, and on the
> very important question of "consanguinity": Should there be many
> independent, competing journals, as now, or a few under the same roof,
> a possibility Jan Velterop of BioMedCentral has suggested?
> ("Why not just 250?")
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3272.html
>
>>
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
Received on Mon Dec 15 2003 - 10:52:11 GMT