Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:26:45 +0100

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:

>sh> open access through self-archiving can and will
>sh> precede open access publishing and its accompanying
>sh> change in business model.
> BioMed Central has no preference in this regard. Open access through
> self-archiving is bound to stimulate open access publishing at source. The
> very business model of BioMed Central supports self-archiving, or any other
> kind of archiving or re-use of the articles published. All research articles
> published in BioMed Central journals are truly Open Access.

So are all toll-access journal-articles that are self-archived! And
that's the point: Open-access publishing is currently the 5% solution
and self-archiving can provide immediate open access to the other 95%,
rather than just waiting!

> Definitely in a few decades, but most probably already within a few years
> the open access model will be the prevailing one

But, through self-archiving, universal open access can already prevail

> The likelihood is that initially the authors
> will be given the choice: pay and your article
> will be open access, or don't pay and it will
> stay behind access barriers.

But that is *not* the only choice, nor the best or fastest one!
Immediate, universal self-archiving is:

Stevan Harnad

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):

Discussion can be posted to:
Received on Tue Jul 22 2003 - 15:26:45 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:00 GMT