Re: Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature

From: Peter Banks <pbanks_at_BANKSPUB.COM>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:34:22 -0500

" It is quite appropriate, however, that publishers should refrain
    from expressing their opinions on the subject of OA self-archiving
    mandates, as OA self-archiving mandates are *entirely* a research
    community matter and not a publishing matter at all."

This is truly an astounding statement. It is publishers who fund and conduct
the peer review that supports the deposit of post-prints of any validity and
quality in repositories. When, and only when, researchers or repositories
take responsibility for peer review themselves can they presume to shove
publishers aside.

As someone who as a publisher supported Dr. Harnad's programme by allowing
the deposit of accepted papers in any repository ON ACCEPTANCE, I am
nonetheless affronted by the suggestion that publishers have no role in the
development of repositories. If institutional repositories are to have any
future, they will have to peacefully (or at least a close approximation of
it) co-exist with journals. Offensive comments such as this do nothing to
advance Dr. Harnad's own cause.

Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
Publications Consulting and Services
10332 Main Street #158
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 591-6544
FAX (703) 383-0765
pbanks_at_bankspub.com
www.bankspub.com
www.associationpublisher.com/blog/


On 11/30/06 6:14 AM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:

> It is quite appropriate, however, that publishers should refrain
> from expressing their opinions on the subject of OA self-archiving
> mandates, as OA self-archiving mandates are *entirely* a research
> community matter and not a publishing matter at all.
Received on Thu Nov 30 2006 - 13:50:34 GMT