Best New Journal, Publishing Innovation and Best eBook Publisher – don’t forget to apply Full Details
Recently in the Liblicense list, the idea came up that publishers could simply refuse to publish works by authors covered by open access policies. Of course, this is their right!
Publishers who share such view might wish to get together and form a new association, to plan their futures together. Here is my suggestion for a title for the association: The Journals for Strictly Limited Dissemination of the Works of Unfunded and Unemployed Researchers. Since this title is rather long, I suspect the abbreviation The Journals of Unfunded Research could quickly become popular.
The membership list of this association could be most helpful to librarians, in these difficult financial times when we need really good information about what to cut. And frankly, if journals are refusing articles written by the likes of authors at Harvard, MIT, as well as a large and growing list of other institutions, or funded by a growing list of the world’s major research funders – it seems reasonable to ask what exactly they will be publishing in the near to medium term future.
For a list of the 220 open access mandate policies to date, see ROARMAP.
Este tutorial es una introducción al Protocolo de Archivos Abiertos para la Recolección de Metadatos, comúnmente conocido por las siglas en inglés de Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH).
Corrigendum: False alarm. The Reuss article is not new. Peter Suber has since noted (May 23 2010):
“Though I tagged the Reuss article yesterday, thinking it was new, I removed the tag soon afterwards. I believe the article is the same one he published in February 2009, framed with a new advertisement and current date — apparently the newspaper’s way of highlighting stories from its archive…”
But the critiques still bear repeating till the “Heidelberg Appeal”‘s repealed and the author corrects its canards…
Roland Reuss “Eine heimliche technokratische Machtergreifung“
Same old tune. Same false notes:
Imaginary “authors’ rights violations” absurdly alleged.
Newspapers clearly have no peer review for either facts or logic…
See: “Heidelberg Appeal Peeled.”