[Open-access] 'real' publishers Re: Well, this is unexpected!

Tue Feb 28 12:41:54 UTC 2012

'real' publishers, Bjoern?

well, I guess, in the age of the web real publishers might be the authors themselves who organize traditonal peer review for their contributions openly on the web

any other suggestions?

cheers, Claudia

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:41:24 +0100, Björn Brembs wrote
> Mike Taylor wrote: 
> 
> > On 28 February 2012 08:09, cameronneylon.net 
> > <cn at cameronneylon.net> wrote: 
> >> I think IRs and DRs are just publishers, simply different types of publishers for instance - but in the short term keep your ear to the ground for whispers. 
> 
> > I like the idea of describing IRs as publishers. 
> 
> I think I don't need to emphasize that pushing the notion 
> that libraries which host IRs are publishers. 
> 
> :-) 
> 
> > That isn't necessarily a point we need to make -- we can just start talking that 
> > way as though it's always been assumed.  "Like other publishers, IRs 
> > make works available under some specific licence; unlike many other 
> > publishers, that licence is often permissive."  That kind of thing. 
> 
> In fact, that's one of the things which beg the question: 
> what do we need 'real' publishers for? 
> 
> Shouldn't this question be solved first? I still have never 
> gotten a satisfying answer. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Bjoern 
> 
> -- 
> Björn Brembs 
> --------------------------------------------- 
> http://brembs.net 
> Neurobiology 
> Freie Universität Berlin 
> Germany 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> open-access mailing list 
> open-access at lists.okfn.org 
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access

thanks & cheers, 
Claudia 
koltzenburg at w4w.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120228/af49f2b0/attachment.html>