![]() |
Sunday, September 19, 2004 |
From a blog posting by Stephen Meyer earlier today: "Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the American Association of Publishers' objections to the recent NIH proposal to require work funded by the NIH to be deposited in PubMed Central is AAP's refusal to address a critical issue. Publishers are trying to assume monopolistic copyright privileges over works they are not willing to fully fund themselves. This would be analogous to a landscaping company trying to charge for access to a public park after the city outsourced some of its maintenance work. The AAP does not own the content and they will not address the issue." (PS: Let's anticipate an AAP objection: But facilitating peer review is much more important for research literature than landscaping is for a park. Granted. But what follows? That publishers who didn't fund the research, didn't conduct the research, and didn't write up the research should control access to the results?) [Open Access News] The hypothetical counter-argument about peer review would be disingenuous: the cost of managing peer review should be trivial compared with the cost to institutions and funding agencies of the time spent by actual reviewers, at least with the Web-based journal workflow systems now available. 10:29:56 PM ![]() |
Recent CD purchases:
5:41:46 PM ![]() |
![]() 4:52:31 PM ![]() |