<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 29 Dec 2013, at 01:18, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">(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).</span></blockquote></div><br><div>In what way, Stevan? Isn't the only difference that truly counts for open access that they publish only 'born' open access articles? (PLOS and BMC; not the other Springer divisions). Or is it success itself you have something against? Or that they provide a 'gold' route to open access?</div><div><br></div><div>By the way, their 'gold' OA publishing is completely compatible with 'green', in that the final articles they publish can be deposited in any repository, very easily, without embargo or any other restrictions. And that they can be text- and data-mined without having to ask prior permission. And re-used otherwise, even commercially, without having to ask prior permission. </div><div><br></div><div>So what's your beef? (Sorry, I know you're a vegetarian, to which I am sympathetic.)</div><div><br></div><div>Jan</div></body></html>