Re: Cost of peer review

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:00:31 -0400

On 2010-05-10, at 7:42 PM, Joseph Esposito wrote:

> Harnad is hoping to replace the small problem of access
> with the large problem of fiscal recklessness.
> But he is winning.

With only about 100 out of about 10,000 universities worldwide yet mandating OA over a decade after mandates were first mooted, I'd say that if that's winning, I'd like to hear what counts as losing! (And that if universities and funders are doing it, it's despite me, not because of me!)

But I haven't lost hope. And if OA mandates -- and hence OA -- do manage to prevail whilst we're still compos mentis, I look forward to being able to show Joe that the resultant growth in research productivity and progress will vastly outweigh any downsizing OA may induce in the journal publishing industry -- with a net "fiscal" gain that is resoundingly positive overall.

Stevan Harnad
Received on Tue May 11 2010 - 02:03:36 BST