Richard, I don't want to take over the thread to push a personal opinion, the purpose
of my mail was to share an important petition that I believe many on this list should be
aware of.
Since you mention "editors and scholars" and the purpose of "paid
subscriptions", though, let me add a short note. I don't know about you, but as
reviewers and editors most of us do editorial work as a service to the profession: we
don't get paid by publishers, we are not subsidized by journal subscriptions. The
(closed-access) journals I've been involved with as editorial board member are not
threatened by open access: if anything they are threatened by the unsustainable fees that
the publisher charges universities and consortia. Academia (that is, authors, reviewers,
editors, students) is not supported by journals fees (it would be awesome if it were),
publishers are, and in my opinion it's about time to change this.
Dario
On May 20, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:
Sorry Dario, you need to look at it from the
editors' and scholarls point of view and not say you are thinking of the
"taxpayer"--journal prices have gone up but taxes have gone down, so that's
not a real issue. I've been on the editorial boards of eight scholarly journals
& all would be in real trouble on free access. Who would pay their bills? Who would
pay their grad students? Already they are threatened by declining university budgets
and losing the subscription base would be a terrific blow. "Access for the
"taxpayers" / "taxpayers pay twice" is a rhetorical tool designed to
defund science. It is the professors and graduate students who need the journals and who
would be hurt when they close.
Richard Jensen
At 11:45 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
With all due respect, your statement is simply
false and ill-informed. The NIH as well as a growing number of large research
institutions and funding bodies worldwide has been mandating open access for 4 years and
I'd like to see any evidence that this is "destroying peer review". There
are many sustainable open access models that publishers and scholarly societies are
adopting, the only thing this campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's obligation to
pay twice for research they have already funded.
Best,
Dario
On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:
that's a bad idea--it will destroy the
financial base of thousands of journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil
for years as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more dangerous, as it
will give politicians control over what gets published.
Richard Jensen
At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
(apologies for cross-posting)
A petition you should care about: require free access over the Internet to journal
articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
http://access2research.org/
http://wh.gov/6TH
25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response from the White
House.
Dario
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l