Peter Banks 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."
>
> 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.
What a load of malarkey. Apart from the few giant journals who hire and
house full time editors, peer review is conducted entirely by the
academic community itself, at its own time and expense. An (academic)
editor sends the (acadaemic author's) paper to (academic reviewers), who
supply their expertise, gratis, for the profit of the publisher. Even
the postage stamp is often contributed by the editor's (academic)
institution.
Regards,
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
416-736-5115 ex. 66164
christo_at_yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
=============================
Received on Thu Nov 30 2006 - 13:55:19 GMT