scitech library question

:: As previously reported, the Science and Technology Committee of the UK Parliament is conducting an inquiry into scientific publications. BioMed Central is providing coverage of the inquiry on their new Open Access now website. The site includes BioMed Central's submissions to the inquiry, but also links to the other submissions, including those from Elsevier, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford UP, among others, and - wait for it - the American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, Association of College & Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, Medical Library Association, Public Knowledge, and the Scholarly Publication and Academic Resources Coalition. (Gee, where was SLA on this one??)

This week, BioMed Central released (Mis)Leading Open Access Myths, in response to what it describes as "some of the most prevalent and
most misleading anti-Open Access arguments." The document discusses the following in detail:

Myth 1. The cost of providing Open Access will reduce the
availability of funding for research

Myth 2. Access is not a problem – virtually all UK researchers have
the access they need

Myth 3. The public can get any article they want from the public
library via interlibrary loan

Myth 4. Patients would be confused if they were to have free access
to the peer-reviewed medical literature on the web

Myth 5. It is not fair that industry will benefit from Open Access

Myth 6. Open Access threatens scientific integrity due to a conflict of
interest resulting from charging authors

Myth 7. Poor countries already have free access to the biomedical
literature

Myth 8. Traditionally published content is more accessible than Open
Access content as it is available in printed form

Myth 9. A high quality journal such as Nature would need to charge
authors £10,000-£30,000 in order to move to an Open Access
model

Myth 10. Publishers need to make huge profits in order to fund
innovation

Myth 11. Publishers need to take copyright to protect the integrity of
scientific articles

No-one has commented on this entry (yet).