IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Public self-archiving

forsdyke forsdyke at post.queensu.ca
Wed Jun 2 11:26:43 EST 1999

Stevan Harnad wrote:

> > Once again, I agree whole-heartedly. However, I do not see why the
> > private sector could not appreciate all your points and get into this
> > act, rather than leave it to the Physicists and (perhaps) NIH to
> > spell-out the doom of much of the paper literature. One of the major
> > publishing houses could, tomorrow, open up a secure and internationally
> > replicated archive and charge $100 a shot for straight deposits, $200
> > for peer-reviewed "authenticated" deposits, etc. Promising new advances
> > in "hypersearching the web" (Scientific American June 1999), will
> > greatly facilitate the task of sifting all this literature.

> So what is all this nonsense about commercial publishers coming in at
> $100 a pop? Since when are publishers server-providers? Do you think
> their one calling is to slap a toll on whatever we try to do?
> You are thinking in all the old, wrong categories.

     Well, someone has got to pay. Either the producer, or the user, or
an organization (the state). Users, particularly in third world
countries should not be asked to pay. The literature should be freely
available. Organizations who subsidize sometimes attach strings. Perhaps
the best alternative is the knowledge producer paying the private
sector? The volume would make it profitable, since once the system was
up-and-running, it would not be overly expensive to run (e.g. the
Physics communities example).

Sincerely, Donald Forsdyke

More information about the Jrnlnote mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net