The Chronicle of Higher Education has finally (April 9) published three letters to the editor in response to Christopher Reed's February 20 article, Just Say No to Exploitative Publishers of Science Journals (accessible only to subscribers). One is from Bill Schwert, an editor of Elsevier' Journal of Financial Economics, observing that the literature is costly to produce and, inconsistently, criticizing Reed for publishing in a toll-access publication. One is from Catherine Cocks, Executive Editor at the School of American Research Press, agreeing with Reed and hoping that the library savings from OA journals will help rebuild collections in the humanities and social sciences. The third is from Eric Merkel-Sobotta, Elsevier's Director of Corporate Relations, repeating the familiar canards, e.g. that "the traditional subscription model...has evolved over hundreds of years to meet researchers' needs" and that OA journals use an "author-pays" model, are not economically sustainable, and compromise peer review. (PS: The best single-source answer to Elsevier's position is BMC's careful refutation of 11 common myths about OA.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 4/08/2004 10:01:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
