Is it possible that the Royal Society Statement of
24/11 was prepared by paid employees of the Society
and not by a collective of the Fellows? It is clear
that at least the 46 Fellows who had signed a letter
to the President of RS did not know about the
statement till it was released.
Arun
--- Matthew Cockerill <matt_at_BIOMEDCENTRAL.COM> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> BioMed Central (and others, including but not
> limited to PLoS) helped signatories of the letter
> with practicalities, such as domain name
> registration and web page updating. This fact was
> not hidden, but nor is it relevant - the letter was
> not a letter from BioMed Central (or PLoS, or anyone
> else), but was a letter from FRSs.
>
> The FRSs who were initially involved with the letter
> certainly knew that BioMed Central and PLoS were
> helping with the practicalities.
> These FRSs then forwarded the letter on, and
> encouraged others to sign the letter. If they did
> not mention BioMed Central or PLoS when doing so,
> then I presume that is because they (understandably)
> did not feel it to be remotely relevant.
>
> As for those FRS's whom BioMed Central (and our
> colleagues) contacted directly about the open
> letter, I'll simply quote verbatim, one of the
> emails we received in reply:
>
> "Many thanks for your email. I was delighted to get
> it because I had
> noticed the RS statement with which I strongly
> disagreed and wondered
> what to do about it. So I will certainly add my
> signature and forward
> the details of the open letter to a few colleagues."
>
> It would perhaps be more helpful if the Royal
> Society focused its efforts on addressing the
> concerns of its Fellows, rather than on developing
> conspiracy theories!
>
> Matt Cockerill
> ==
> Matthew Cockerill, Ph.D.
> Publisher
> BioMed Central ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/ )
> 34-42, Cleveland Street
> London
> W1T 4LB
> UK
>
> Tel: 020 7631 9127
> Fax: 020 7631 9926
>
> Email: matt_at_biomedcentral.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> >
>
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]On
> > Behalf Of Ward, Bob
> > Sent: 09 December 2005 08:50
> > To:
>
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> > Subject: Re: Open Letter about OA to the Royal
> Society by
> > Fellows of the
> > Royal Society
> >
> >
> > Dear Stevan,
> >
> > If this was "a rather disinterested contribution
> of BMC
> > toward OA", why
> > was its involvement not openly declared in the
> letter, or in the
> > prominent piece that BioMed Central devoted to the
> letter on the home
> > page of its website? My understanding is that some
> of the signatories
> > did not even know about BMC's involvement when
> they signed.
> >
> > I think it would be best for contributors to the
> debate on open access
> > to openly declare their interests. The Royal
> Society has openly
> > acknowledged that, as a registered charity, it
> uses its
> > surplus from the
> > publication of its journals to fund meetings,
> lectures and other
> > activities for the benefit of the science,
> engineering and technology
> > communities, and for the public.
> >
> > So how about everybody else declaring their
> interests? After
> > all, it is
> > now standard practice for authors to declare any
> potential
> > conflicts of
> > interest when they submit papers to journals. So
> perhaps you
> > could start
> > a trend, Stevan, by declaring your interests.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > Bob Ward
> > Senior Manager
> > Policy Communication
> > Royal Society
> > 6-9 Carlton House Terrace
> > London
> > SW1Y 5AG
> >
> > Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516
> > Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615
> > Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stevan Harnad
> [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 21:28
> > To: AmSci Forum
> > Subject: Re: Open Letter about OA to the Royal
> Society by
> > Fellows of the
> > Royal Society
> >
> > Re: "Science academy defends open access
> policy"
> > Donald MacLeod, Guardian: Education
> > Thursday December 8, 2005
> >
> >
>
http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/story/0,10577,166298
> > 8,00.html
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 donald.macleod_at_guardian.co.uk
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Stevan
> > > Royal Society response to my website piece
> > >
> >
>
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1
> > 661107,00.
> > html
> > > is this true?
> > > best wishes Donald
> >
> > Dear Donald,
> >
> > You ask whether BMC coordinated the Open Letter
> from Fellows of the
> > Royal Society dissenting from the Royal Society
> statement.
> > The answer is
> > yes, in part (and PLoS too).
> >
> > My understanding is that the negative reaction to
> the Royal Society
> > statement occurred, in part, among FRSs who were
> either editors or on
> > the editorial board of some BMC (and probably
> PLoS) journals. This
> > formed a point of focus for a collective action,
> which BMC helped
> > coordinate -- which is a very good thing, because
> otherwise
> > it may have
> > taken longer to reach critical mass. (It would
> almost certainly have
> > happened anyway.)
> >
> > But before you make too much of the spin that the
> RS's publicist, Bob
> > Ward, is trying to put on it ("potential vested
> commercial interest"),
> > please note the following two facts:
> >
> > (1) There are far more signatories than the
> small initial
> > seed-population of BMC Editors
> >
> > and
> >
> > (2) This was a rather disinterested
> contribution of BMC toward OA,
> > because it is not OA publishing that the RCUK
> is proposing to
> > require,
> > but OA self-archiving -- of articles published
> in *non-OA*
> > journals.
> >
> > This means that BMC (and PLoS) helped for the sake
> of
=== message truncated ===
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Received on Sat Dec 10 2005 - 06:22:59 GMT