Very sensible suggestions.
But there may be times when only one outlet will do......
Kev Hopayian
On 24 Mar 2012, at 00:17, Suhail Doi wrote:
> Thanks everyone - I think we are all agreed in one way or another that OA is really reverse restricted access and the question now is what should our responsibility to academic publishing be from here on as evidence based researchers and practitioners. I would propose we develop some evidence based guidelines to protect ourselves as evidence based authors and will start off by proposing the following:
> a) For authors with funds, use the pay per article facility for open access in conventional journals not "OA" journals as that would reinforce keeping submissions free for authors
> b) try to avoid submitting to "conventional" journals that impose hefty page charges or editorial fees and thus are restricting access both ways (eg Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism)
> c) Favor journals that have embargoed access for a fixed period eg 1 year over indefinitely restricted journals wherever possible
>
> Any thoughts or edits or additions?
>
> Suhail
>
>
> On 3/24/2012 3:24 AM, Jacob Puliyel wrote:
>> Dear All
>> This is another model that I think has potential to bring down costs to the minimum and yet be open access.
>>
>> But it is very new and yet to become popular with researchers.
>>
|