...I would rather have Open Access to raw content than added value that renders the content inaccessible. Thesis 3: Inaccessible content has no value....
Thesis 4: Sell added value. The content has been paid for....
[I]n the Arts and Humanities, postprint archiving provides a more immediately practicable route to Open Access [than paying author-side fees]. It is already technologically feasible; it does not depend on the development of new business models, or on a radical reform of research funding, or on the availability of additional resources to meet transitional costs; and it achieves the most fundamental goal of ensuring that raw content --the ultimately indispensable component of research publications-- is accessible to researchers without impediment. This may not be a perfect solution, but it is possible, which is much more important; and any achievable improvement on what we have now is good enough --at least, as a starting-point....
Posted by
Peter Suber at 10/07/2006 06:27:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
