on 30 Oct Stevan Harnad <harnad@ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:

> Again, the reasoning of the following well-informed comment takes one's
> breath away: It is so well-intentioned, so near -- and yet so far off
> the mark! And alas still so representative of current inchoate thinking
> on the subject:

        The comment is off the open access 'mark' because
        the boycott not about open access. It is only about
        UC management wanting unlimited growth of R&D
        income to increase their bottom line. As long as
        increased numbers of papers push journal prices
        higher, Babbitts will cry.

        Once the custodian of world-class research in
        many fields, UC is, according to its own faculty,
        driving scholars away thanks to the decimation of
        its libraries.

        Author archives will never solve the problem of the
        reader seeking a richly stocked, well staffed library.

        Best wishes,

Albert Henderson
Pres., Chess Combination Inc.
POB 2423 Bridgeport CT 06608-0423
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>

> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Mike Brown wrote:
>
> > I believe given the
> > current climate in the academic world that we will lose this round of
> > the [boycott] battle and capitulate to Elsevier.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Impact factor and RAEs here in the UK - few are willing to take up the
> > call and boycott these journals for fear of being penalized when it
> > comes to grant applications.
> >
> > Which looks better to a funding body:
> >
> > a) Publishing your [parasitology' work in an open access Journal
> > or
> > b) Publishing your work in Trends in Parasitology (TiP, Elsevier)
> >
> > Sadly it seems the current state of play is that publishing in TiP looks
> > better to a funding body
> >
> > Is this not crazy!?
> >
> > What we need is for more researchers to stop agreeing with us that open
> > access is a great idea and start publishing more high-impact papers in
> > Journals with open access models - this will make Elsevier sit up and
> > listen.
>
> What is really crazy is that we keep expressing our desire for open access
> through moratoriums and petitions like this instead of taking matters into
> our own hands by self-archiving our own output! All Elsevier journals are
> Romeo "blue/green," which means they support author self-archiving. Why
> propose to boycott them instead of just taking them up on what can even be
> interpreted as a challenge: "Why should I [Elsevier] take you seriously
> about your alleged desire for open access if you can't even be be bothered
> to provide it for yourselves when you are invited to?"
>
> > I realize that open access is not about making research available to the
> > developing nations (and yet... ;-)) - but it is my prime concern.
> >
> Open access is about making resaech available to *all* would-be users,
> worldwide. What on earth is the point of asking researchers to
> withold their papers from their preferred journals rather than simply
> self-archiving them? That way they can have their RAE-cake and the world
> can eat it too!
>
> http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0008.gif
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0009.gif
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm
>
> Quo usque tandem patientia nostra abutere...?
>
> Stevan Harnad
[snip]