Re: peer review costs

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 06:34:31 +0100

On Thu, 6 May 2010, Dr. Oliver Obst wrote:

> Dear Stevan,
>> because users are satisfied with the Green OA version, ...
> is there any evidence for that? I recently filled out a
> questionnaire from the Medical Library Association asking exactly
> this. We provide NEJM via Ovid as publishers' HTML and they're
> not even satisfied by that, so I answered: "No, they will only be
> satisfied by the journals formatted postprint PDF."

No evidence whatsoever -- and all existing evidence is to the contrary,
namely, that in the few fields (like high energy physics) where there is
already virtually 100% Green OA, there are no journal cancellations!

That is why every single time I have reluctantly speculated about the
contingencies I have carefully said IF AND WHEN users are satisfied with
the Green OA version only...

But the point that is being systematically missed by so many people --
OA advocates and opponents alike -- is that OA is not about -- or for --
journal publication costs or journal publication reform: It is about
research access, usage and impact.

And universal Green OA will solve that problem whether or not it reduces
publishing to peer review alone.

Stevan Harnad
Received on Fri May 07 2010 - 08:10:06 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:50:08 GMT