tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31255526.post4177732355187628820..comments2014-05-07T19:20:48.634+02:00Comments on Collaborative Services @ Web 2.0: Open AccessDr. Matthias O. Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07956559765773289892noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31255526.post-13985937422148427552008-07-18T16:28:00.000+02:002008-07-18T16:28:00.000+02:00(1) The problem of research accessibility is relat...(1) The problem of <A HREF="http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/21.html" REL="nofollow">research accessibility</A> is related to, but not identical with, the problem of journal affordability.<BR/><BR/>(2) The way to increase Open Access (OA) from 15% to 100% is for research institutions and funders to <A HREF="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/" REL="nofollow">mandate Green OA self-archiving</A>.<BR/><BR/>(3) Who will read journal articles once they are all OA? The same people who read them when they were accessible only to subscribers, plus everyone else on the web. Powerful search, annotation and other <A HREF="http://www.citebase.org/" REL="nofollow">metric services</A> on this distributed OA database will be created as soon as the content is there. For 15% it's hardly worth the bother.<BR/><BR/>(4) The only essential service journals provide is peer review, and if and when OA self-archiving mandates cause the cancellation of institutional subscriptions, the <A HREF="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm" REL="nofollow">institutional windfall savings</A> will be more than enough to pay the much-reduced costs of peer review only, on the Gold OA cost-recovery model.<BR/><BR/><B><A HREF="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/" REL="nofollow">Stevan Harnad</A></B><BR/><A HREF="http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html" REL="nofollow">American Scientist Open Access Forum</A>Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.com