On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:13:09 Lawrence Paulson wrote: > I hope that all of you who have done high quality work will > submit it to JAR. If I had high quality work to submit, I'd want to know that the journal I was submitting it to wouldn't use copyright law to inhibit the distribution of my work, reducing its potential audience. In the past, because of my health, I've spent some time between enrolments at universities, during which time I didn't have access to any institutional subscriptions. I was stymied by the prices many journals charged for access even to single articles (before I knew whether they'd be interesting or not). These prices seemed particularly absurd when I considered that the marginal cost of a digital copy of an article is zero. And in many cases it was hard to see what the fixed costs were, either. Were the authors of the articles paid? Were the peer-reviewers paid? Any suggestion that the money was needed for quality control was called into doubt by the Chaos, Solitons & Fractals controversy (but to be fair, that journal is owned by Elsevier, not Springer). So, is JAR the kind of journal I'd object to? Does it use copyright law to inhibit the dissemination of knowledge? If so, why? Does it pay the authors of its articles? Does it pay its peer reviewers? The only reason I'm making an example of JAR is because it was advertised on this list; its high impact factor was mentioned, but the features I care more about were not. Tim <><
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.