This video clip is from a very recent public debate on ”Open science and the future of publishing” held at Univ. of Oxford. If you enjoyed this clip, here is more from Tim Gowers on this topic, and also views from a major funding agency that believes in open access, and interesting new ideas from a top-level publisher.
Here a highlight from two separate interviews with Tim Gowers and Tyler Neylon. The article provides some background info on how the boycott came to life.
Q: When did you become an advocate for a change in the journal publishing system, and for Open Access?
Neylon: I have two major interests: math research and software. With both, you are aware of how easy it is to disseminate information on the Internet. Throughout my career I have been painfully aware of the inefficiency of scholarly publishing. If you know what technology can do, you are always seeing better ways of doing things. When I left NYU, it got harder for me to access research. I either had to sneak into, or pay $500 per year for access to an academic library. You shouldn’t have to pay if researchers don’t want you to pay.
Q: Who is responding to the boycott?
Neylon: The vast majority are professors at good universities. The most are in math, about 20 percent.
Q: Why are most in math?Neylon: People in math are particularly done with Elsevier. There were many resignations from their editorial boards. Mathematicians hate drama. To get a mathematician to resign, something must be seriously wrong.