[Open-access] Letter to publishers - URGENT

Mon Mar 5 09:15:53 UTC 2012

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> That all looks good to me.  Only one nit to pick: the statement "facts
> are not copyright" is an apples-to-elephants comparison.  We should
> say something like "facts are not SUBJECT TO copyright".
>

Good point

>
> No doubt many of the replies you receive will attempt to finesse the
> issue by saying things that (they feel) fall short of an actual "no",
> such as "we except that the amount should be limited".  We should not
> ignore such detail, but clearly we mustn't allow it to blur the clear
> picture that we want to present.  So my suggestion is that we present
> the results of this survey as a list of YES and NO in bold; but then
> include an annex with the detailed statements.
>
> Yes - we allow a box for publishers to add material if they wish but it is
the YES/NO that counts

> Finally, I don't know which publishers you plan to contact, but please
> be sure to include some YESses, such as PLoS, as well as the Elseviers
> and Springers.  Otherwise if we end up with a document that is just
> NO, NO, NO all the way down, we risk making it seem as though the
> publishing industry has a united front supporting a reasonable
> position, and we are unreasonable for wanting/expecting it to be
> different.  Instead, we want to draw lines between the publishers that
> co-operate and those that don't.
>

Yes. I intend the following 10
PLoS, BMC, Science (contact needed), Nature, Wiley, Elsevier, Springer, STM
Publishers assoc, Roy Soc Chem, Am Chem Soc.

The latter two are representative of "pure society" publishers.

>
> -- Mike.
>
>
>
-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120305/e2707130/attachment.html>