Publisher statements that may get me on the boycott-peer-review bandwagon 2012-08-20


... “The original post over on @mbeisen's It is NOT junk blog drew out a Elsevier flack Tom Reller who had a thing or two to say about the Research Works Act being peddled by New York CongressCritter Carolyn Maloney... Mr. Reller claimed:... ‘We call final published articles private sector information products because we (the private sector) have added value, as before mentioned, to the articles...’ I find my self searching for this ‘added value’... One Graham Taylor, flack for the UK Publishers Association, has an opinion bit up in the Guardian (in response to something written by Mike Taylor). Mr. Taylor opines: ‘We need a flow of accessible funds through the scholarly communication system to finance what we do. Hitherto these funds have flowed through academic library budgets, the "old" subscription model, which Dr Taylor describes as "a useful service in pre-internet days". In future they will likely flow from research funding agencies (and a few charities and foundations) looking to enable open access...’ Well, yes and no. We do need to continue to finance the distribution of scientific papers / scientific information. For sure. What we don't need is Mr G. Taylor's "we". The publishers are a classic middle man, standing between the producer and consumer. Sometimes that brings value, sometimes it brings blood sucking leechery that adds cost but no value to the system...”



08/16/2012, 06:08

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »

Tags: oa.pubmed oa.publishers oa.comment oa.usa oa.legislation oa.negative oa.rwa oa.nih oa.advocacy oa.boycotts oa.elsevier oa.copyright oa.peer_review oa.costs oa.pledges



Date tagged:

08/20/2012, 15:20

Date published:

01/31/2012, 09:39