There are three letters to the editor about open access in the November 10 Wall Street Journal. All three are in response to Charles Wysocki's 10/28 article, Publishers Oppose Plan for Free Access to Scientific Research, blogged 10/29. (1) Norman B. Anderson, CEO, American Psychological Association. Excerpt: 'The National Institutes for Health proposal for free access to research articles should be carefully studied for its potential effect on the quality and quantity of research and the possibility of unintended consequences.' (2) Jan Velterop, Director and Publisher of BioMed Central. Excerpt: 'While there's no doubt that traditional publishers do claim that U.S. taxpayers will ultimately pay for the NIH plan, isn't it also true that most of the current subscription income of the very same publishers ultimately also comes from taxpayers, via the many university and other publicly funded libraries?' (3) Paul Kincade, President, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Excerpt: 'Scholarly publishers oppose mandatory government-imposed rules, they have pointed out major flaws in the NIH proposal and they question a plan that would jeopardize their successful efforts to increase access in favor of an untested proposal created by people who have never successfully published a journal.' (Thanks to Carla Funk.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 11/11/2004 01:32:00 PM.
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.
