Open Access: Consensus is difficult in openaccess debate

Sian Harris hat ein Bündel von kurzen Interviews zu Open Access veröffentlicht:

Open Access: Consensus is difficult in openaccess debate;
Interviews by Siân Harris; Research Information; 3. Juni 2006;
[Interview-Partner sind Jens Vigen, CERN sowie aus dem englischen Raum:
Martin Richardson (Oxford Journals):
Publishers are starting to do open access, partly in response to the researchers and partly as an experiment. The economic model has not been proven yet and openaccess publishers might need other ways to cover their costs. However, if openaccess took off then commercial publishers would do it and probably be very successful.
, Michael Mabe (now at Int. STM Association)
: OA is potentially parasitic to traditional publishers.,
Robert Terry (Wellcome Trust) Open access is better for research.
Publishing research in journals worked very well in a paper-based format
but people do not work like that now. Often now the first port of call
for finding out about other research is a search engine. The subscription
model fragments research information behind lots of different deals,
different copyright rules and different formats.
,
Les Carr und Stevan Harnad (Univs. Southampton and Montreal),
Tim Smith (IoPP), Matthew Cockerill (BioMed Central),
Alma Swan (KeyPerspectives).]