Here’s where I thought Dave Hone’s Academics on Archosaurs series was going: Be honest: aren’t you just a little disappointed that it’s not? [The actual Tom Holtz article is here.
Harvard University is probably the single richest school on the planet.
I wrote yesterday that Open Access had been the front-page story in the Guardian .
These have been a crazy few days for open access.
No. No, they did not. Despite what this clown had to say on this morning’s BBC Radio 4 Today Programme. (That’s occasional SV-POW! reader/commenter Paul Barrett in the back half of that audio clip, being amazingly restrained.) Turns out that the published work this interview is based on is this one in Laboratory News .
Well, I’ve spent a lot of time on this blog trying to determine what the terms are for Elsevier’s elective open-access articles — what they term “Sponsored Articles”.
I was searching for some information — what proportion of Elsevier’s revenue is from journal subscriptions. So far, I’ve been unsuccessful with that (can anyone help?), but along the way I stumbled across Elsevier’s Annual Reports and Financial Statements for 2011. And it makes happy reading.
David Roberts just commented on the last-but-one post, Winkling licence information out of Elsevier, bit bit bit : David Roberts Says: March 6, 2012 at 11:41 pm e The extra rights for sponsored articles page is now linked to from http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.authors/sponsoredarticles And he’s right: here’s a screenshot of the Sponsored Articles page: {.size-full .wp-image-5495
Folks, you should all stop reading this blog right now, and get yourselves across to What’s In John’s Freezer? , the awesome new blog of biomechanics wizard and brachiosaur-cervical scan facilitator John Hutchinson.
This post is part three in what, astonishingly, seems now to be an ongoing series about trying to discover what Elsevier’s licenses are. For parts one and two, see: What actually is Elsevier’s open-access licence? What have we learned about Elsevier’s open-access licence? Today I read an article that I think was meant to be encouraging, but which instead I found disturbing.