I do not speak as one who is against OA. I am neutral and open to experiment and results.
AIP has the same liberal pre-print and post-print posting policies as the APS ones positively referred to below.
AIP has offered "author Select" OA options in three of its journals this year, plans to do so for more in the near future, and will offer fully OA journals soon as well.
We are not biased one way or the other.
AIP aims to disseminate info about physics to the widest possible audiences within the most affordable economic models.
If our authors, readers or subscribers indicate by real actions what they want, we will try our best to respond appropriately.
I was talking about the thoughtfulness of the various letters referred to.
One seems to open to options and experiments, the other to a more pre-judged one.
Marc
Marc H. Brodsky
Executive Director and CEO E-mail: brodsky_at_aip.org
American Institute of Physics Phone: (301) 209-3131
One Physics Ellipse Fax: (301) 209-3133
College Park, MD 20740-3843
>>> harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk 12/7/2005 6:30:26 PM >>>
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Marc Brodsky wrote:
> I would say a careful reading of the two statements show more balance
> and openness in the RSC statement than in the response letter cited
> below by Harnad. I would suggest that we explore new venues for
> dissemination of information before first setting out to undermine
> successful existing ones. If the new venues work for authors and
> readers, we will not need government imposed mandates to make them
> happen.
>
> Marc H. Brodsky
> Executive Director and CEO E-mail: brodsky_at_aip.org
> American Institute of Physics Phone: (301) 209-3131
> One Physics Ellipse Fax: (301) 209-3133
> College Park, MD 20740-3843
Having just returned from the DASER meeting in College Park, MD, where the
two physics Learned Societies, the American Physical Society (APS) and the
Institute of Physics, took an incomparably more supportive and
collaborative position on both open access and self-archiving (and the AIP
rep just sat in glum silence throughout), I find this regressive statement
from AIP (the separate publisher affiliate of APS), parroting the familiar
party line of STM, ALPSP and the first RS statement, especially
instructive. It speaks volumes about the real underlying conflict of
interest here, and no doubt within the Royal Society too, where it was
clearly the publishing tail wagging the royal pooch in formulating,
without consultation, a statement so dissociated from the best interests
of the RS's members. The RS's shame will be mitigated, once the head
reasserts sovereignty over its tail. Fortunately, the tail of the APS is
not even attached to its body...
DASER 2 IR Meeting and NIH Public Access Policy (Dec 2005)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/50-guid.html
Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society (Nov 2005)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4938.html
Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal (Aug 2005)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4716.html
Open Letter to Research Councils UK: Rebuttal of ALPSP Critique (Aug 2005)
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/18-guid.html
Stevan Harnad
Received on Thu Dec 08 2005 - 12:55:32 GMT