On Monday 5. September 2016 13.01.29 Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:31:59PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/open-access- licenses
This applies to the select few Elsevier publications that are open-access. Indeed what most peaple have against Elsevier is that most of their content is not open-access.
Indeed.
PLOS will typically charge you even more. E.g. if your article managed to get published into PLOS ONE, you'd have to pay $1500[1]. This is because it's their only source of funding: they are a respectable open-access non-profit.
https://plos.org/publication-fees - even more for some of the others.
Yes, which unfortunately gives an excuse for various factions in universities to remain against open access because they can point at the costs and ask who will pay those fees. Meanwhile, the costs of other forms of publication are not questioned. The brand reputation of non-open-access journals is also brought to bear in such arguments.
But open access journals do need to be sustainable, certainly, and that does need to involve money coming from somewhere.
https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/copyright
Elsevier, of course, gets additional rights. How else would they make all that money?
http://theoryofcomputing.org/crisis.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/academic-publisher-elsevier-hit-with- growing-boycott-1.1166665
Again, this is an open-access Elsevier publication. Not the typical Elsevier publication.
Indeed. I did read those articles when I first came across them some years ago, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned them. But my remarks are more about Elsevier than any specific journal.
If people think the referenced journal is a good channel to communicate open hardware things, they should follow their instinct and not let me stop them.
Paul
P.S. Does it matter what the larger publishing organisation does? I had one experience of being at a conference about text-mining where a representative for a big-name academic publisher said that they were going to have an API for their articles that would only provide a jumbled bag of words (and maybe only some of the words). They seemed to think this was a generous offer to the audience, many of whom probably wanted to do semantic analysis on the text. You can imagine what the reaction was. All because the matter of being the gatekeeper was more important than the knowledge being shared.