Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates

From: Dana Roth <dzrlib_at_LIBRARY.CALTECH.EDU>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:25:19 -0700

However, some institutions contribute many more articles than others.
Doesn't this clearly suggest that a complete transition to OA will
result in a major cost shift to producers? ... and also completely fails
to address the dramatic difference between the OA costs of non-profit
and commercially published articles.

Dana Roth
Caltech

-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On
Behalf Of Velterop, Jan Springer UK
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 8:24 AM
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates

Stevan Harnad asks:
>
> Why should funders pay a penny more now, when all publication costs
> are still being paid out of institutional subscriptions?

And who funds the institutions to pay for subscriptions? The very same
funders! They are paying right now. All I'm suggesting is that they use
their money to support open access publishing directly. More money? The
same money. No new or extra money.

>
> (Jan, your arguments are awfully familiar, and they sound very much
> like those of the non-OA publisher lobby that has been opposing the OA

> self-archiving mandates...)

Maybe it's time you read my comments more carefully.

Jan Velterop
Received on Tue Sep 05 2006 - 22:43:02 BST