The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)
harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Tue Jul 22 09:26:45 EST 2003
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:
>sh> open access through self-archiving can and will
>sh> precede open access publishing and its accompanying
>sh> change in business model.
> BioMed Central has no preference in this regard. Open access through
> self-archiving is bound to stimulate open access publishing at source. The
> very business model of BioMed Central supports self-archiving, or any other
> kind of archiving or re-use of the articles published. All research articles
> published in BioMed Central journals are truly Open Access.
So are all toll-access journal-articles that are self-archived! And
that's the point: Open-access publishing is currently the 5% solution
and self-archiving can provide immediate open access to the other 95%,
rather than just waiting!
> Definitely in a few decades, but most probably already within a few years
> the open access model will be the prevailing one
But, through self-archiving, universal open access can already prevail
> The likelihood is that initially the authors
> will be given the choice: pay and your article
> will be open access, or don't pay and it will
> stay behind access barriers.
But that is *not* the only choice, nor the best or fastest one!
Immediate, universal self-archiving is:
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03):
Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum at amsci-forum.amsci.org
More information about the Jrnlnote