Brian Simboli wrote:
> One thing is pretty clear so far: librarians as a group are not likely
> to be enamored with this approach, which... is one reason why it is
> unlikely to succeed. The NIH and Nature events have signalled the final
> death-knell of the green approach...
I am not sure how representative this view is of the librarian community,
but I suggest that everyone stay tuned to see whether Brian's optimistic
prediction proves true.
In the meantime, I would add only that what matters is not whether
or not (some) librarians (or publishers) are enamored of the green
self-archiving approach, but whether or not the actual content-providers
-- the researchers, plus their employers and funders -- are.
So I suggest that speculations about hypothetical overlay journals as well
as impending death be redirected to some of the other lists currently
discussing these matters, leaving the American Scientist Open Access
Forum to focus on evidence-based practical strategy for reaching 100% OA
as soon as possible:
"Re: New policy of combining one-on-one postings" (April 2004)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3721.html
"The American Scientist Open Access Forum is the oldest and most
active of the Open Access (OA) lists. It is the locus where most of
the topics being widely discussed today first arose -- as attested
to by the long-standing subject-threads attached to them.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html
"I would like to propose that henceforth OA-to-OA postings that
are not likely to be of interest to policy-makers at universities,
research institutions, and research-funding agencies might better
be directed to one of the other OA lists...
"Let us try to reserve the American Scientist Open Access Forum for
substantive policy-relevant matters with a view to hastening and
facilitating OA worldwide."
Stevan Harnad
Received on Sat Feb 05 2005 - 14:14:24 GMT