Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

From: Jim Till <till_at_UHNRES.UTORONTO.CA>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:55:17 -0500

On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote [in part]:

> It is no longer possible to close that door. For where journal
> publishers explicitly refuse to allow self-archiving, thereby
> broadcacting that they do not share their authors' goal of maximizing
> their research impact, the preprint-plus-corrigenda strategy --
> -- is still available
> to all authors for attaining almost exactly the same end -- while
> implicitly naming-and-shaming, each time that strategy needs to be used,
> those publishers who thereby advertise that for them maximizing their
> potential revenue streams is more important than maximizing the
> potential impact of the research they publish.

Stevan, this point seems to me to be quite an important one, in relation
to the evaluation of 'best practices' designed to promote open access to
the peer-reviewed research literature, and thus to bring us measurably
closer to the tipping point. It would be very helpful, I think, if you
could provide some real-life examples of cases where the
preprint-plus-corrigenda strategy has already been used to implicitly
name-and-shame a major publisher. Do you have a favorite example?

Jim Till
University of Toronto
Received on Sun Jan 12 2003 - 03:55:17 GMT

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