tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post65147793550787690..comments2024-03-17T08:30:21.129+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Nature Publishing Group and Digital Science do not support the Research Works ActRichard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-82721201001698871192012-01-19T14:44:43.897+00:002012-01-19T14:44:43.897+00:00Agreed. Meanwhile the window for it to stake a lea...Agreed. Meanwhile the window for it to stake a leadership role on the right side of this issue is slowly closing.Arno Bossehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00730878260357491425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-30139108063193879582012-01-19T10:25:12.474+00:002012-01-19T10:25:12.474+00:00That is a fair point. I agree I could have phrased...That is a fair point. I agree I could have phrased it better. I did not mean to imply that the University of Chicago Press has changed its position. I cannot know whether it has or not.<br /><br />What I can say is that I have emailed the Press three times, and in my last message I drew attention to your comment. I have yet to receive a reply to any of my emails.<br /><br />In light of what you have said publicly, I cannot help but think it would be better for the Press to publicly confirm or deny what you say.<br /><br />Of course, it is quite entitled not to do so, but it would be nice if it could reply to my emails and say whether or not it does intend to make a public statement.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-37057721387203873432012-01-19T09:36:52.362+00:002012-01-19T09:36:52.362+00:00I don't think it's a fair characterization...I don't think it's a fair characterization to say that University of Chicago Press' support for the RWA "may be weakening". That makes it sound as if they were previously in support and are now wavering. <br /><br />UCP was clear in its message to me when I contacted it that it does not endorse the RWA. It's true that it hasn't take a public position but there could be any number of reasons for this - consultation with its peers about a joint statement, approval from its legal dept. etc.<br /><br />I'd very much prefer a public statement of disavowal from them as well. But I don't think there's a basis for implying that they formerly were in support and are now reconsidering.Arno Bossehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00730878260357491425noreply@blogger.com