Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:00:49 -0500

Not that I defend that $500 charge--I don't-- but compare it with the
$1500 asked for by Varmus' project.

For one thing, probably $500 is nearer the real cost than $1500; for
another, reducing the cost to $500 might possibly offer some savings to
institutions as a whole and $1500 certainly would not.
I personally will be glad to see good partial
measures in the interim. This is especially true since BMC is directed to
a subject area which has so far unfortunately shown little enthusiasmfor
more extensive proposals.

 On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Alan Story wrote:

> Yes, but speaking of "nothing new at all": how can BioMed claim to be the
> "gold standard" and say it believes in "open access" when there is a flat
> fee of US$500 ( a.k.a. the article-processing charge) for admission to the
> "open access" club in the first place. BioMed's user-pay toll-gate has just
> been moved further up the information superhighway.
> Alan Story
> Kent Law School
> Canterbury UK

David Goodman
Princeton University
and Palmer School of Library and Information
Science, LIU
Received on Fri Jan 10 2003 - 18:00:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:49 GMT