Elsevier/ACS: Zweimal verdienen dank Open Access
3. April 2007 by ob | Kategorien: Open Access, Publikationswesen
Peter Suber regt sich über Elsevier und die American Chemical Society auf, die beide die Open Access-Idee dazu mißbrauchen, doppelt an einem Artikel zu verdienen. (Elsevier mit dem HHMI-Deal, ACS mit AuthorChoice = Paying for Green OA) Er nennt dies das Double-charge Business Model:
Tags: ACS, Elsevier, Open Access, PublikationswesenElsevier is collecting fees for permitting embargoed green OA, and for making the deposits, when all its publishing costs are already covered by subscription fees. ACS is collecting fees for green OA, and for providing gold OA, when all its publishing costs are also already covered by subscription fees.
Related posts
Nutzung: 1,197 Aufrufe
Translations:
One Response to “Elsevier/ACS: Zweimal verdienen dank Open Access”
Loading ...
Peter Suber schreibt: “As the ACS policy is currently worded, it only charges the fee for self-archiving the published edition of an article. Hence it leaves the door open for no-fee self-archiving of the final version of their peer-reviewed manuscript, rather than the published edition. On the American Scientist Open Access Forum, Stevan Harnad asked whether ACS planned to charge for that form of self-archiving as well. Adam Chesler, the ACS Assistant Director Sales and Library Relations, said yes.
Chesler’s answer makes the ACS policy even worse than it seemed at first. It’s bad enough to force authors to pay for gold OA in order to get green OA; at least they really get gold OA too, wanted or not. But under this new wrinkle in the policy, even self-archiving authors who don’t get gold OA must pay for it.”
Die Logik dieses Statements erschließt sich mir nicht. Aus der Antwort von Adam Chesler geht klar hervor, daß die ACS nur das Selbst-Archivieren der von ACS publizierten Version erlaubt, nichts anderes. Selbstarchivierende Autoren bekommen immer zugleich gold OA und müssen dafür zahlen, ob sie wollen oder nicht.