More on PRISM
s is James Jordan of Columbia University Press and Paula Barker Duffy of the University of Chicago Press.
Many of us recognize the challenges [university presses] face. This was an honest attempt to address legitimate concerns; this is not.
From Barry Graubart at Content Matters:
...While some of the journal publishers, most notably Nature, have proven adept at navigating the new world of content, too many of the scientific publishers and aggregators have dug in their heels in an effort to keep the old system in place. That system, using the research community for peer review, with all the revenues going to the journals, might have made sense when there were no alternative models, but clearly make little sense today.
It seems evident that the journal publishers are going to take the RIAA approach, hoping to use litigation and legislative lobbying, to try to protect their model. That's a shame and in the long run seems unlikely to succeed. It's ironic that these publishers of scientific journals seem to have missed the key element of Darwinism: Evolve or Perish.
From Adam Hodgkin at Exact Editions:
...[The publishers’] PR move has really just drawn attention to the impossible position they appear to be defending -- that it is a good and necessary thing for the results of publicly funded research not to be freely available to the public. Whatever you do, you dont want to appear to be arguing for that....
From Janet Stemwedel at Adventures in Ethics and Science:
...I'd be thrilled if this lobbying group would choose some word other than "Integrity" to fill in the "I" in their acronym. At least in the context of scientific practice, it's not clear that they understand what integrity means.
From John Baez and Blake Stacey at Science after Sunclipse: For this one, you’ll have to click through to see the images.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 8/30/2007 11:03:00 AM.
