<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Joseph Esposito <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:espositoj@gmail.com" target="_blank">espositoj@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I cannot agree with Professor Harnad on this. The obvious first point to make is that Kent Anderson does not represent any publishing lobby. He runs a not-for-profit medical publisher and is currently head of a trade organization whose members are largely not-for-profits and include PLoS. </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>(1) Joe, I have been struck (haven't you?) by how remarkably little difference there is between the stance of not-for-profit and for-profit subscription publishers regarding OA.</div><div>
<br></div><div>(2) And once they become big and successful one is also struck by how the differences between the OA publishers and the subscription publishers shrink (both for for-profit OA publishers like Springer/BMC and not-for-profits like PLoS).</div>
<div><br></div><div>(3) And of course there's the matter of competition; so publishers <i>will</i> squabble amongst themselves.</div><div><br></div><div>The publisher lobby does not just consist of registered lobbyists. But the priorities and line of argument are pretty recognizable, don't you think?</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">The second point is that whatever outcme one may want, the people behind PubMed Central violated their own policies. I fail to see how advocating lawlessness is in the society's interest.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Whether there has been any lawlessness at all is for the courts to decide.</div><div><br></div><div>I am not without my own criticisms of Wellcome, PMC, PLoS or eLife, by the way: </div><div>
<br></div><div>I think Wellcome has been rigid, unreflective, and dogmatic about its own view of OA and how to achieve it (subsidize Libre Gold rather than strengthen Gratis Green mandates), and that they played a big part in the Finch Fiasco. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I think PMC should harvest OA articles from institutional repositories, rather than being a mandatory locus for direct deposit by either authors or publishers. </div><div><br></div><div>I also think pre-Green Gold is premature, overpriced and unnecessary (<i>as a means of providing OA</i>) -- though I do think PloS Biology and PLoS Medicine are excellent journals, as journals.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But I very much doubt that Wellcome, PMC, PLoS or eLife have done anything illegal, as the Scullery chefs seem to triumphantly believe they have the evidence to prove!</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com" target="_blank">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Not worth responding to, but fun for a year-end peak:<div>
<br></div><div><a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/24/pubmed-central-revealed-reviewing-and-interpreting-the-findings-of-a-surprising-2013" target="_blank">PubMed Central Revealed -- Reviewing and Interpreting the Findings of a Surprising 2013</a><br>
</div><div><br></div><div>The publishing lobby is clearly becoming increasingly desperate -- and ad-hominem.</div><div><br></div><div>(Not a proud swan song for the Gutenberg era in Scholarly Publishing -- more like what one would expect from the tobacco industry or Big Agra…)</div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div></font></span></div><span class=""><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote></div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Joseph J. Esposito<br>Processed Media<br><a href="mailto:espositoj@gmail.com" target="_blank">espositoj@gmail.com</a><br>
@josephjesposito<br>+Joseph Esposito
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>