Re: Don't confuse AIP (publisher) with APS (Learned Society)

From: Dana Roth <dzrlib_at_LIBRARY.CALTECH.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:40:19 -0800

It is unfortunate that the 'true believer' doesn't recognize possible dangers in sudden change.

The unfortunately inflammatory statement that "the AIP is basically saying that the interests of generating and protecting their current revenue streams and cost-recovery model trump the interests of research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, and the interests of the tax-paying public that funds their funders." is uncalled for.

What they are saying is that "generating and protecting their current revenue streams and cost-recovery model" is important until a model that fully meets the needs of all scientists is available.

While "self-archiving mandates ... are about maximizing the access, usage and impact of publicly funded research" they may not meet the needs of serious research scientists, and over time may well undermine dissemination of peer-reviewed, readable, and archived research results.

I fully agree with Peter Suber in that "The current method is a reasonable compromise: a period of exclusivity for the publisher followed by free online access for the public."

In case no one has noticed, the ACS allows authors to post URLs for their articles, which are limited to 50 downloads during the first year after publication, and are essentially Open Access after the first year.

Dana Roth
Received on Mon Dec 11 2006 - 02:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:39 GMT