Re: Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society
[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Even the RS admits that some publishers make too much money. To quote
their take on it: "While some companies do appear to be making excessive
profits...". This said, although OA may have been catalyzed by the
excesses of some publishers - Gordon & Breach remains famous in this
regard, and not only for excess profit-making -, it is about open
access, not excess profits.
Le jeudi 24 novembre 2005 Ã 19:33 +0100, Barry Mahon a Ã©crit :
> 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
Dr. Jean-Claude GuÃ©don
Dept. of Comparative Literature
University of Montreal
PO Box 6128, Downtown Branch
Montreal, QC H3C 3J7
[ Part 2, "This is a digitally signed message part" ]
[ Application/PGP-SIGNATURE 196bytes. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
Received on Fri Nov 25 2005 - 15:08:15 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:07 GMT