[Irtalk] The evidence fails to justify publishers’ demand for longer embargo periods on publicly-funded research. | Impact of Social Sciences

[Hilton Gibson]

Due to disciplinary differences in the “half-life” or relative demand of a
scholarly article, some publishers are looking to enact longer embargo
periods before an article can be made openly available on archives and
repositories, in order to protect against profit losses. Peter Suber finds
there is insubstantial evidence to suggest embargo length affects profit
margin. Furthermore, the premise that public policies should maximize
publisher revenue before maximizing public access to publicly-funded
research is unfounded and should equally be rejected.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/01/14/suber-embargoes-on-publicly-funded-research/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lib.sun.ac.za/pipermail/irtalk/attachments/20140116/82c8d9ff/attachment.html>