[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Koreanosaurus (regarding PDFs instead of forelimbs)
I understand that none of us, including publishers, can make money if
not actually selling our production. This means that if our production
is for free, we will starve as we would not have money to buy food
(and everything else necessary). Then, we should pay them, which is,
as it seems to me, the point Jaime defends. Unless scientists
themselves, which can make a living from other sources (e.g.,
University wages) take the role of publishers (I suppose publishing
will be way cheaper and less time-consuming now that, in practice, we
largely replace paper with pdf). Would that be possible?
2010/10/20, David Marjanovic <email@example.com>:
> > My question is: why do scientific papers use for-profit publishers
>> (such as Elsevier) AT ALL? Why not a nonprofit organization (Such do
>> exist - like PLOS - but why does the other kind exist *at all*, much
>> less be predominant)?
> Happenstance of history.
> There is no good reason.
>> If one doesn't require print copies
> The ICZN requires a certain (though small) number of "identical and
> durable copies", and the PhyloCode will require ink on paper. (Similar
> things hold, IIRC, for the ICBN and the ICNB.) But of course few
> scientific papers deal with nomenclature in the first place.