[GOAL] Re: Fwd: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate Immediate-Deposit)

[Graham Triggs]

On 20 December 2013 13:41, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:

> So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their
> policies and provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their
> own web sites (findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping
> the fully functional, machine-readable version for the professional
> scientist (power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls?
>

Because if the provisional version was sufficiently human readable, then
all of the subscriptions for providing basic access would be unnecessary,
and cancelled.

Licencing the enhanced, machine-readable version would only occur when
someone justifies that they have a project to text-mine the corpus. At
which point, and despite having theoretically "freed up" the budget, the
cost would mean that most text-mining efforts never even get off the ground.

And so free [to author] publishing as subscription publishers currently do
would be unsustainable.

G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131221/afd1ed03/attachment.html