[GOAL] Re: Where is Plan B?

[Dana Roth]

One would hope that knowledgeable contributors would please refrain from criticizing  'publishers' as a group ... as though there were no differences in their policies towards academics.

The stark contrast between the  policies of the American Physical Society, for example, and many  commercial publishers is so transparently obvious that I need say no more.


Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540
dzrlib at library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 12:52 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Scholarly Publishing: Where is Plan B?


On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com<mailto:amsciforum at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Richard Poynder
<ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk<mailto:ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk>> wrote:

> To the intense joy of OA advocates, Elsevier announced Monday that it has
> withdrawn its support for the controversial US Research Works Act.

I find no joy in progressing from the presently unacceptable position to a worse one and then back to square one.

The only "progress" is to discover even more clearly that publishers are institutionally anti-academic and anti-reader so that the few of us who fight for basic rights have clearer evidence. I take no joy in the total silence of organised academia - not a squeak of comment and support from any major university or library leader.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120303/b344d213/attachment-0001.html