medinfo

Ist das Open Choice Modell von Springer (gebloggt am 5.7.2004) derartig hochpreisig und unfreundlich gestaltet worden, nur um den Mißerfolg von Autorengebühren und damit von Open Access zu „beweisen“? Aus dem Sept. 2004-Heft (Seite 7) von Cites & Insights: One rival says Springer’s plan represents little more than a ‚public relations initiative.‘ It is an accusation Mr. Haank [CEO von Springer] would likely deny, although he does appear to relish the challenge he is presenting to some academics to put their money where their protest are. „Let’s see how serious they really are…we expect that not more than 10 percent will be interested in this option,“ he says. As Suber notes, „Haank sounds as if his plan is designed more to generate low uptake, and ground a rebuke to OA advocates, than to test the waters in good faith.“ Sure sounds that way to this interested observer.

Wieviele Autoren würden das „alte“ Publikationsmodell Page Charges/Abogebühren benutzen und wieviele das „neue“ mit Publication/Author-Charges? Nach zwei Studien im JBC (Crawford’s Cites & Insights Sept. 2004, Seite 6) und PNAS scheint das Verhältnis momentan irgendwo bei 85:15 zu liegen.

In accordance with the Washington Principles, Cell Press is pleased to announce that access to the recent online archive of Cell and the other premier journals of the Cell Press collection will become freely available beginning in January 2005. The recent archive of these journals includes content that is 12 months old or older and dating back to content from 1995. Each month as new issues are published, the year old issues will be added to the freely accessible recent archive.

Das waren die guten Neuigkeiten und hier kommen die nicht-so-guten: The archive from 1994 and earlier is available for a one time purchase [Cell Press Backfiles on ScienceDirect]. This material consists of the following journals:

This material is only available as a bundle and has only recently been created by scanning hard copies of the journals and extracting the metadata for each article. As you may imagine, this was not an inexpensive exercise and is priced differently from the standard ScienceDirect approach of 2.5% of the price of the printed volume. Keith Wollman, personal communication. Ja, der Preis, der Preis! 1€ pro Artikel ist mir dann doch zu teuer…

Nature Publishing Group is delighted to announce the launch of a new series of peer-reviewed journals for practicing physicians. The first Nature Clinical Practice journals will launch in November 2004. „A new clinical series essential for all medical libraries!“ … and all medical libraries are delighted to pay for these additional „must-haves“ 🙁 – Immer mehr Journals in immer weniger Händen & die bekannte Marktaufspaltung: €850 für Bibliotheken, €142 für Privatabos. Was kommt auf uns zu:

• Nature Clinical Practice: Cardiovascular Medicine
• Nature Clinical Practice: Gastroenetrology & Hepatology
• Nature Clinical Practice: Oncology
• Nature Clinical Practice: Urology

Interessanter Artikel zur Verlagspolitik und open access im SPIEGEL ONLINE vom 18.August: „Aufstand gegen die Hüter dess Wissens„. Im Spiegel-Forum darf diskutiert werden. Na denn – los geht’s.