nkedin.com/in/ericarchambault>
> *T.* 1.514.495.6505 x.111
> *C.* 1.514.518.0823
> *F.* 1.514.495.6523
>
> [image: http://1science.com/images/Logo_SM_horizontal_small.png]
> <http://www.science-metrix.com/> [image:
> http://1science.com/images/1science.png] <http://
Stevan:
Yes,
distributed management of Institutional Repositories spread the costs and
immunize them against a take-over. That is why advocated for them as early
as the 1999 UPS meeting in Santa Fe.
But,
it is now also increasingly clear that this distributed management comes
with significant
Stevan:
Peer review is not just about maintaining quality. It is part of a process
of getting new ideas accepted. A discovery adds to human knowledge only if
it is accepted. Right now, anonymous peer review starts the process of
accepting/rejecting research.
It is certainly valid to question
, Eric F. Van de Velde
eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com wrote:
Stevan:
Peer review is not just about maintaining quality. It is part of a
process of getting new ideas accepted. A discovery adds to human knowledge
only if it is accepted. Right now, anonymous peer review starts the process
of accepting
Heather:
Open Access was never about eliminating any possibility to make money of
scholarly publications.
When it came to pricing of journals, it was at most to provide some
balance: if the author-formatted version is available for free, you are
still welcome to pay for the published version on
In my latest blog, I walk on a meandering path through Open Access,
Repositories, Metadata, and Expert Systems. Submitted for your
consideration and comments...
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-metadata-bubble.html
--Eric F. Van de Velde.
PS: Please accept my apologies
I just put out a new blog on building sustainable long-term archives. I
hope you find it of interest.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2014/05/sustainable-long-term-digital-archives.html
In a previous post, I wrote about the Bleeding Heart of Computer Science.
It's off topic for this list, so
Textbooks are a significant expense for students. We may already have the
money to make them open access:
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2014/03/textbook-economics.html
--Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Twitter: @evdvelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
Happy new year to all on GOAL!
To start out 2014, I investigate the following question on my blog:
Is it feasible to create a self-regulating market for Open Access (OA)
journals where competition for money is aligned with the quest for
scholarly excellence?
I hope the answer satisfies European
I am adding take on Beall's attack on OA in my latest blog post, which you
can find here:
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/12/bealls-rant.html
Some excerpts:
But is it really too much to ask to avoid the lowest level of political
debate, politics by name-calling?
[...]
Most of us prefer
Check Paul Krugman's recent blog post on scholarly communication in
economics...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/the-facebooking-of-economics/?_r=0
--Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Twitter: @evdvelde
E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
Stevan, Bernard:
My main concern is not with mandates, but with the repositories themselves.
If memory serves me right, there was at least one unsuccessful attempt to
defund the NIH-run Pubmed repository. ArXiv also had an existential crisis
when run from a government lab.
The weakness of
As Stevan mentioned, the previous thread [GOAL] Fight Publishing Lobby's
Latest FIRST Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc. is
getting a bit unwieldy. So, I am starting this new one to reply to Stevan.
I am cross-posting, because the original thread was.
Scholarly communication is a
Unfortunately, this is the problem of moving the discussion and
implementation of open access to the national political stage. Earlier this
year, I wrote the following (
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/03/open-access-politics.html):
There are also reasons for concern. As this new phase of
Green Open Access as a survival strategy for libraries:
The academic library has, by default, tied its destiny to a service with no
realistic prospects of long-term survival. It has become a systems
integrator that stitches together outsourced components into a digital
recreation of a paper-based
With apologies for cross posting.
I just realized I did not notify the open-access listservs of my latest
blog post. I only posted it on my twitter feed.
Here it is:
The Empire Strikes
Backhttp://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-empire-strikes-back.html
that are anything
but. Indeed, PLOS One is called a 'journal', yet it is essentially
different from most traditional journals). Efforts to bring back the
situation as it was in the 1950's are futile and no more than rearguard
battles.
Jan
On 3 Jul 2013, at 21:30, Eric F. Van de Velde
This response to Turow's op-ed in the NY Times may be of interest to the
list.
Turow's piece contained an outrageous remark about the unprofitability of
scholarly communication. Most of it was devoted to business developments
that, according to Turow, harm authors.
I respond to most of his
My new blog post concludes that Open Access is only the first step in
reforming scholarly communication.
Comments welcome at
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-sibyl-of-cumae.html
--Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
Telephone: (626)
My latest blog expresses some concerns about moving Open Access to the
national political stage. I hope you find it interesting:
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/03/open-access-politics.html
--Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
Telephone: (626)
In my most recent blog, I wonder why universities have been so far more
receptive and supportive of MOOCs than they ever were of Open Access.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2013/01/moocs-teach-oa-lesson.html
--Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
Telephone:
not be such an enormous problem to
the self-interest of the research industry. Thanks to the Web, the research
industry can regain a better balance in the scholarly ecosystem.
Les Carr
On 6 Nov 2012, at 04:32, Eric F. Van de Velde
eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.commailto:eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com wrote
Publishers are manipulative capitalists who extort academia by holding
hostage the research papers they stole from helpless scholars on a mission
to save the world. This Hitler vs. Mother Teresa narrative is widespread in
academic circles. Some versions are nearly as shrill as this one. Others
are
My latest blog post is about arXiv, SCOAP3, and non-disruption of the
market. I hope you enjoy it.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-physics-experiment_16.html
--Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
___
GOAL mailing list
Universities could form a consortium, pool whatever they spend on Springer,
do a leveraged buyout of the company, and run it as a nonprofit... (I am
NOT saying it is a good idea.)
--Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
Telephone: (626) 376-5415
Skype:
Stevan:
Thomas's humbug advice is not incompatible with green open access or with
mandates. In fact, it would accelerate the evolution of open access.
You equate access to the pay-walled literature with institutional site
licenses. There are other ways to gain access:
1. Obtain a personal
The statement
Publishers are concerned that if an open access policy is adopted then some
of the biggest scientific companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline, might move
research work from British labs to those overseas where it will able to
protect itself from open access.
is particularly ridiculous.
, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde
When replacing a high-margin industry with a low-margin one, when
increasing efficiency in the distribution by going open access, there will
be job losses and job
://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03-02-12.htm#rwafrpaa
Peter
Peter Suber
gplus.to/petersuber
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde
eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com wrote:
The statement
Publishers are concerned that if an open access policy is adopted then
some
On Sunday, the Open Access petition to the White House
http://wh.gov/6TH reached
the critical number of 25,000 signatures: President Obama will take a stand
on the issue. Yesterday was Open Access Monday, a time to celebrate an
important milestone. Today is a time for libraries to reflect on their
. Where are
they?Â
Jean-Claude Guédon
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
Le lundi 14 mai 2012 Ã
11:38 -0700, Eric F. Van
Just received this tweet from Clayton Christensen (Harvard Business School
Professor and author of The Innovator's Dilemma):
âTo understand a companyâs strategy, look at what they actually do rather
than
what they say they will do.â MailScanner has detected a possible fraud
attempt
from
To Alicia:Here are what I consider the positive contributions by commercial
publishers. For any of the positive qualities I mention, it is easy find
counterexamples. What matters is that, on the average, the major publishers have
done a good job on the following:
- Select good editorial boards of
), they work. What has not yet been
tested is funder mandates designating *institutional* deposit.
But that's only because the funders have only been listening to the
nay-sayers. I recommend a little p[en-mindedness and empiricism.
Stevan Harnad
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde
.
Stevan Harnad
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde
eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com wrote:
Jan:
I thought for a long time that conflating the two was wrong, but I
have
changed my view on that. On Michael Eisen's blog, two comments,
one
as they require OA, do we care how they
spend ? or waste ? their money? (Except as tax payers, perhaps, but the
access issue isn't the financial issue. Conflation of the two has stymied
progress in my view. Just as dirigiste solutions have.)
Jan
On 1 May 2012, at 19:16, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:
How
How about the following:
Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress, funders
and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to their published
research results. Institutions and their libraries will phase out all electronic
journal subscriptions by May
OA, do we care how they
spend â or waste â their money? (Except as tax payers, perhaps, but the
access issue isn't the financial issue. Conflation of the two has stymied
progress in my view. Just as dirigiste solutions have.)
Jan
On 1 May 2012, at 19:16, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote
Stevan and others:
This is also a response to the long thread on Open Access Priorities: Peer
Access and Public Access. I am responding in this thread as it includes
the issue of OA Pragmatics.
Over the years, you and others on this list have amassed a wealth of
analysis and data that favors OA.
Eric F. Van de Velde has sent you a link to a blog:
My most recent blog post should be of interest to GOAL. It is a
not-for-the-faint-of-heart proposal to expand open access. I would appreciate it
if you could post your comments on the blog instead of to the mailing list. I
hope you find
Sorry for being late in responding. (I'm travelling.)
To Steve:
The salient point in the title of the blog was Doubts, i.e., uncertainty, not
 knowing, questioning.
You may disagree with the argument for IRs as a way to combat rising journal
prices. However, it is definitely an argument that has
will be for a scholarly article?
--Eric.
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On 2011-10-28, at 5:47 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:
My most recent blog may be of interest to this list. It starts
My most recent blog may be of interest to this list. It starts as follows, the
rest is available at
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/10/open-access-doubts.html
--Eric.
Open Access Doubts
Science embraces the concept of weakly held strong ideas. This was illustrated
recently by the
From my blog at http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/
The Birth of the Open Access Movement
Twelve years ago, on October 21st 1999, Clifford Lynch and Don Waters called to
order a meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The organizers, Paul Ginsparg, Rick
Luce, and Herbert Van de Sompel, had a modest
Institute
of Technology at cer...@caltech.edu.
--Eric F. Van de Velde,
Director of Library Information Technology, Caltech.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4564477.stm
Is this a first? I.e., a major news organization uses unrefereed
self-archived preprint as the basis of a news story. Although not a
major hard-news story, it was posted on the main page of the BBC news
web site. Does this point to the
Office, University of
Michigan Library
- Catherine Candee, Director of Scholarly Communication Initiatives,
California Digital Library
- Teresa Eling, Director of Electronic Publishing, Cornell
University Library
- Eric F. Van de Velde, Director of Library Information
[mailto:har...@cogprints.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 2:56 AM
To: Joseph Bogen; american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org; Ed Sponsler;
Eric F. Van de Velde
Cc: eprints-undergro...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Automatic transfer from website to Eprints Archives
On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Joseph
debt
to Stevan Harnad and his group for their contribution to the scholarly
community.
--Eric F. Van de Velde.
Director of Library Information Technology
California Institute of Technology
49 matches
Mail list logo
