Stevan-
PLoS and BMC are open access publishers and thus have to be expected to put
most of our effort into promoting open-access journals, just as you put most
of your effort into promoting self-archiving. But PLoS (and, I should add
BMC) have also supported self-archiving as well, and will continue to do so,
whether or not you change the wording of this document.
I can't speak for PLoS on my own, but will run this by our board and staff
and will pass any additional suggestions they have on to you.
-Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: Draft letter for institutions to sign to implement Berlin
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Michael Eisen wrote:
>
> > I don't want to reopen the argument about your 5%/95% division, but I
don't
> > think its appropriate or necessary to use these figures here. How about
> > just:
> >
> > (8) New "open-access" journals recover their costs by charging the
> > author-institution for each outgoing article they publish and making
> > all published works freely and openly accessible from the moment
> > of publication, instead of restricting access to subscribers
> >
> > (9) For articles for which no suitable open access journal exists, an
> > alternative immediate solution to put an end to access denial and
> > impact loss is for their authors to self-archive their full-texts online
on
> > their own institutional open-access websites for all would-be users
> > worldwide.
>
> Mike, those changes seem reasonable, but I hope you will find it equally
> reasonable that they be made only on condition that Public Library of
> Science (PLoS) then officially supports and promotes the signing of this
> statement to institutions in its own open-access promotional efforts.
>
> So far, both PLoS and BMC have been promoting only (8) and not (9) in
> their negotiations with institutions, and it is for that very reason that
> I have invoked the 5%/95% figure (which is fair and true -- but I agree
> that we need not reopen that here): to make it clear that the far bigger
> and faster means of providing immediate open access is being
systematically
> overlooked.
>
> I think it would be reasonable to dilute the statement by removing the
> 5/95 contrast, but only if it will then be actively promoted by PLoS and
> BMC. If it is diluted only to have PLoS and BMC continue to promote only
> (8) unilaterally, and not (8) and (9) jointly, then I don't think the
> interests of immediate open access will be served by diluting it in
> this way.
>
> I know you cannot speak for BMC, but I am confident that if PLoS commits
> to promoting this joint open-access provision strategy with institutions
> instead of just promoting (8), then BMC will follow suit too.
>
> Best wishes, Stevan
>
Received on Thu Dec 25 2003 - 21:07:35 GMT