🚀 go-pugleaf

Lest AmSci Forum members conclude that all or even most of the press
coverage of the RCUK is as botched as this and the preceding posting,
do have a look at this one in the Guardian (and remember the next-but-one
posting by Chuck Hamaker from The Register!). And there's more to come.

    Jimmy Leach, Open access failings 'cost UK £1.5bn', The Guardian,
    September 16, 2005.
    http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/story/0,10577,1571791,00.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:39:04 +0100 (BST)
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: simon.newsam AT wme.co.uk
Cc: belinda.isaac AT morgan-cole.com
Subject: Belinda Isaac's article on Open Access in IC Wales

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0300business/0250features/tm_objectid=16130535&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=open-access-to-research---but-at-what-cost--name_page.html

Dear Simon,

Rarely have I read such an ill-informed article. Belinda Isaac seems to have
managed to misunderstand just about every substantive point about Open Access, so
much so, that one could answer each of her points by number (1-32), from the
the self-archiving FAQ (of long standing, and openly accessible):

    http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#32-worries

The long-suffering Peter Suber, of Open Access News, has, however, has had a go:

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_09_11_fosblogarchive.html#a112672149592614039

You might also want to have a look at the somewhat more au-fe piece I wrote
on the same subject, on the very same day:

    http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11220/
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/news/792

The only thing I cannot discern is whether Belinda's article so badly
missed the mark because she failed to do her homework, or whether it is
an occupational hazard of protecting brands, patents and property all
day that one cannot conceive that researchers and research just do not
fall in the category of one's usual clientele and their products...

Cordially,

Stevan Harnad