<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:15 PM, THE DIRECTOR OF UNIVERSAL ACCESS, ELSEVIER wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Hi David,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">What I really liked about the Finch Report is that it points a way forward that can enable different stakeholders to work together constructively to widen access.
Changes would be required from all stakeholders, but we would all get further faster by working together. I know it will be controversial, perhaps especially so on this list, but is it perhaps time to explore opportunities to work
<i>with</i> publishers?<u></u><u></u></span></p><div class="im">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"><u></u></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>It's not controversial for me. Most publishers have blown their chance to work with anyone. Elsevier have already wasted years of my research effort in mumble. For me the value of this list is that it addresses the problems that publishers create and tries to solve them without the publishers.<br clear="all">
</div></div><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>