Re: Wrong advice on OA

From: (wrong string) édon <>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:10:03 -0500

    [ 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. ]

Let me add a slight re-phrasing to the PS of my latest message:
Stevan Harnad is right when he says that mandates will not work for
OA journals. No one could, nor should, force authors to publish in
some journals. However, a parallel to a mandate can be established by
governments if they fully subsidize journals (e.g. journals of
scientific associations): they can offer the equivalent of a public
option where researchers can publish. The term is much in the news in
the US these days. Maybe it is time to hijack it and transpose it to
the OA debates.

Another thing governments can do is ensure that evaluations do not
rely on a single figure, and particularly avoid resting only on
Thomson-Reuters' JCR. These improved rules of evaluation should be
applied for grant allocations. Adequate rules for the evaluation of
researchers should also be designed, and these evaluations should
avoid using JCR.

In short, there is no mandate in the Gold road, but there are ways,
including a public option of journals to correct a playing field
distorted by very imperfect (to say the least) metrics.

Let us work together at promoting both mandates for self-archiving
and public options for gold journals.

Jean-Claude Guédon
Received on Wed Nov 11 2009 - 14:38:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:59 GMT