<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" target="_blank">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<font face="Helvetica"><span style="font-family:arial">On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pm286@cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">pm286@cam.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:</span><br>
</font><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Mike Taylor has asked about Green OA and revenues and I have forwarded his mail here for an authoritative reply.<br>
<br>P.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Mike Taylor</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@indexdata.com" target="_blank">mike@indexdata.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:25 AM<br>Subject: [Open-access] Does Green OA has a negative effect on journal revenues?<br>To: <a href="mailto:open-access@lists.okfn.org" target="_blank">open-access@lists.okfn.org</a><br><br>
Dear all,<br>
<br>
I've often seen it said that there's no evidence that allowing Green<br>
OA has a negative effect on journal revenues. Is there any evidence<br>
that it does NOT have a negative effect, or is it just that no-one's<br>
done a good study that shows there IS a negative effect?<br>
<br>
Does anyone have references, either way?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><span style="font-family:Helvetica">Alma Swan has published the response of both the American Physical Society and the Institute of Physics -- from the discipline with the most and the longest-standing Green OA, near 100% in high energy physics and astrophysics for almost 2 decades: Both publishers report that there is no correlation between Green OA growth and subscriptions: <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261006/" target="_blank">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/261006/</a></span></div>
</blockquote><div><br>Thank you for this - but disciplines vary in many respects and it would be valuable to know about others. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div style="font-family:Helvetica">
<br></div><div style="font-family:Helvetica">However, in view of the recent, unaccountably publisher-dominated and counterproductive Finch Report <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/907-.html" target="_blank">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/907-.html</a></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica">I think it is time for the research community (researchers, universities, funders) to - stop this needless and self-damaging preoccupation with the protection of publishers' current subscription revenue streams, which are flowing amply in many cases opulently.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>I should point out that Mike Taylor is not an academic - he is #scholarlypoor and works in the software industry. He is an excellent example of the type of person disadvantaged by lack of Open Access and Open data (of whatever flavour). He manages to publish cutting edge peer-reviewed research in spite of the indifference of the academic community in recognising the need to communicate their publicly funded resources outside the ivory tower.<br>
<br></div>He fights tirelessly for Open Access - including articles in Guardian and Times Higher Ed and we owe him our support and thanks.<br><br>P.<br clear="all"></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>