I hope we’re not the the point of having litmus tests for OA
orthodoxy, whatever that orthodoxy might be, whether “full and
immediate deposit in repositories without delayed access” or
“full and immediate author-pays publishing” or whatever.
It’s discouraging and more than a little insulting to those who
believe in free access and have taken risks to accomplish it—Jan
being only one of many--to be labeled heretics. Sometimes it seems that
this list serve exists more to define doctrinal purity than to evangelize
in support of the cause.
Peter Banks
On 3/4/07 11:46 AM, "Jan Velterop" <openaccess_at_BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
Erratum:
This should read:
So you really do believe, Stevan, that someone who is not in
favour of self archiving mandates *cannot be* in favour of
OA.
Jan
On 4 Mar 2007, at 16:19, Velterop, Jan, Springer UK wrote:
So you really do believe, Stevan, that someone
who is not in favour of OA *cannot be* in favour
of OA.
Extraordinary.
No point in discussing further.
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on
behalf of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Sun 3/4/2007 4:24 PM
To:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Research Reports as Advertisements:
An Allegory
[cut]
Which raises again the question of why you do
not support mandating the
OA by mandating self-archiving, now, though you
purport to advocate OA?
So, there's the point, again. Will we have a
response, this time?
[cut]
Your weary archivangelist,
Stevan Harnad
Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
Publications Consulting and Services
10332 Main Street #158
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 591-6544
CELL (703) 254-8862
FAX (703) 383-0765
pbanks_at_bankspub.com
www.bankspub.com
www.associationpublisher.com/blog/
Received on Sun Mar 04 2007 - 21:39:15 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:48 GMT