tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-86095525378789148512008-03-11T09:18:00.000Z2008-03-11T09:18:00.000ZThank you for your comment. As I <A HREF="http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html" REL="nofollow">pointed out</A> on your blog, I do not believe that scholarly publishers can be trusted to self-regulate. Were they capable of doing so the research community would not have been so blighted by the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serials_crisis" REL="nofollow">serials crisis</A> for all these years.<BR/><BR/>The problem is <A HREF="http://www.infotoday.com/IT/dec02/poynder.htm" REL="nofollow">compounded</A> by the nature of the scholarly communications market, which appears not to be susceptible to traditional market forces. And it is not clear to me that (in the short-term at least) OA publishing will change the nature of that market in any fundamental way -- since peer review remains a bottleneck. <BR/><BR/>For that reason, I believe what is needed is an organisation with a wider mandate, and one that represents the interests of all those within the OA community. An <A HREF="http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/03/where-is-open-access-foundation.html" REL="nofollow">Open Access Foundation</A> perhaps?<BR/><BR/>So while I would support the formation of an Association of OA Publishers, I am sceptical that it would be enough.Richard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.com