[Taxacom] Monbiot editorial on academic publishing

[Jim Croft]

I don't think there is anything to discuss - he's absolutely right.

But there are real costs to publishing and someone has to wear them, in
cash, or in kind (which is the review for free argument).

There are several models and options out there and you do have a choice.

Which is why it it interesting to watch the sociology and economics come
into play as a four-way tussle between old-media, new media, the desire to
make money and the desire to get something for nothing.

Science and taxonomy is a bystander in all this and we will almost certainly
end up with feet in all four camps.

Ah yes feet; they're made for voting.

jim
On Aug 31, 2011 6:29 AM, "Michael Heads" <michael.heads at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 'Like' = 'resembling, such as, as good as' (Concise Oxford).
>
> I realise that Australians don't have an accent, but we're not all in that
fortunate position.
>
> Can't we discuss the Monbiot article rather than my terrible grammar,
accent, etc?
>
>
> Michael
>
> Wellington, New Zealand.
>
>
> My papers on biogeography are at: http://tiny.cc/RiUE0
>
> From: Jim Croft <jim.croft at gmail.com>
> To: Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org>
> Cc: Michael Heads <michael.heads at yahoo.com>; taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 August 2011 8:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Monbiot editorial on academic publishing
>
>
> Michael ers a Kiwi - you're lucky he wrote ert down rather than spoke ert.
;)
> The problem is not so much grammar, but the whether you choose to regard
'like' as inclusive or comparative (I am pretty sure in this case it is not
affectionate or facebook).
> I am starting to think botanists have  made a big mistake in allowing the
publishmentification of new species in English. ;)
> jim
> On Aug 31, 2011 5:10 AM, "Neal Evenhuis" <neale at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
>>
>> I had to re-read this before I understood the tricky grammar used by
Michael.