Re: Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society

From: Barry Mahon <barry.mahon_at_IOL.IE>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:33:27 +0100

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-15" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:38:39 +0100, adam hodgkin <adam.hodgkin_at_GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> I have read it again and on re-reading it still strikes me as an
> extraordinarily tendentious press release.

> --------
> I do wonder what fair-minded and open-minded Fellows of the Royal Society
> think of this representation of the argument of the proponents of Open
> Access? I know of no proponent of OA who thinks that the primary factor
> driving the OA movement is a concern to rectify a situation in which some
> publishers are making excessive profits (if this is true, and whatever it
> means).

I don't think the RS said anything about 'primary factor' they just said
> -
"some participants in the debate appear to be trying to pursue another aim"

I would say that is a reasonably fair point, I have come across OA advocates who think that publishers are making too much money...(whatever that means).

Bye, Barry
Received on Fri Nov 25 2005 - 00:34:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:07 GMT