Paul M Gherman (Vanderbilt University) wrote:
Re: PALS report and conference on Institutional Repositories
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3603.html
Institutional Repositories (IR's) are gaining good traction at many
research universities, and I think it is time for the Open
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Frederick Friend wrote:
JISC in the UK is putting as much effort into supporting institutional
repositories as it is into open access journals...
The results of an author survey funded by JISC and OSI to be published
on the JISC web-site next week show that a low
Leo Waiijers wrote:
But, what if libraries cannot afford the subscriptions any longer,
break out of the Big Deals and have to resume their cancellation
policies (as happens in the US at the moment)? Do you think that
the commercial publishers will remain passive and accept that
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Waaijers, Leo wrote:
While physicists, mathematicians and others were
self-archiving their articles, libraries kept their subscriptions.
Why?
In that case publishers did not object. Why should they? But what if
libraries resume their cancellation policies (as they do)
-Original Message-
From: Barbara Kirsop
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: 27-2-2004 10:58
Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
We would like to call on all those commited to the OA movement to
redress the balance in your
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Waaijers, Leo wrote:
As long as libraries keep paying incredible amounts for their subscriptions,
publishers will allow self archiving of the published articles in return. In
that case it is not necessary to change anything. You're quite right.
But what this leaves out is
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote:
As a movement, open access could do worse than follow Stevan's strategy:
publish in an open access journal when you can; if there is no open access
journal for you, publish where you can and self-archive.
Amen!
that is all Ye know on earth, and
Dear Jim,
It seems that Open Access can mean many (well, at least two) different
things, and perhaps in that respect the analogy with food is appropriate.
With a dearth of food it's just anything edible one craves, even though it
doesn't taste nice or has long-term undesirable effects; if there
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Dr.Vinod Scaria wrote:
It is... counterproductive to ignore the authors from the developing
world who have been always kept away from the mainstream.
I am not against the author pays model, but just against the lack of
flexibility in operation. Majority of researchers in
Authors either don't want open access badly enough, or they are
insufficiently au fait with the options, or it's just inertia that
makes them so far fail to move more quickly to open access. The momentum
is growing fast, I agree, but not yet fast enough, and I really think
that the idea of 23,500
Stevan,
Option 1, publishing in open access journals, is open to virtually all
disciplines of biology and medicine. It is not the number of open
access journals that counts here, but the disciplines covered.
Top papers in biology could go to PLoS Biology or JBiol, and all other
papers could go
I've re-directed this thread from the closed Budapest list to the AmSci
list as it has now become of more general interest. -- SH
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:
The trouble is, making the case for open access journals *implies* making
the case for open-archiving (indeed multiple
These are comments on two October 9 articles on open access in Nature by
Declan Butler (plus an accompanying letter by John Ewing).
Who Will Pay for Open Access/DECLAN BUTLER
http://www.nature.com/cgi-bin/doifinder.pl?URL=/doifinder/10.1038/425554a
Will scientists, their host institutions and
Here are some comments on the October 6 Guardian article that usefully
describes one of the two roads to open access -- open-access publishing --
but unfortunately omits the other, larger and faster road: open-access
self-archiving.
Scientists take on the publishers in an experiment to
I have been watching this mailing list for some time.
Although I applaud open archiving, from my point of view open access
publishing is what is needed in the long run.
This is because the key property is not that everyone can get at a copy
of a publication, but rather that people can use
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Richard Durbin wrote:
Although I applaud open archiving, from my point of view open access
publishing is what is needed in the long run.
Unfortunately, I was unable to discern from your message *what* it is
that open-access publishing is needed for that open-access
Whether the digital text (including data) of an article is made openly
accessible by being published in an open-access journal or by being
published in a toll-access journal but being self-archived in an
open-access archive is irrelevant: Either way, the data reported in it
are available to
Thank you!
- Original Message -
From: Richard Durbin r...@sanger.ac.uk
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
I have been watching this mailing list for some
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Barbara Kirsop wrote:
they DID print the letter - today (Oct 9th)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1058838,00.html
Bravo Stephen Pinfield, and Barbara Kirsop, and Bravo Guardian!
Now back to the hard work of informing and activating the research
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Michael Eisen wrote:
Stevan Harnad wrote:
Whether the digital text (including data) of an article is made openly
accessible by being published in an open-access journal or by being
published in a toll-access journal but being self-archived in an
open-access archive
Thanks from me too to Stephen and Barbara.
Concerning informing the research community: A colleague and I had a
poster on this issue about 4 years ago at a scientific conference. The
feedback at the conference was very encouraging and interstingly enough
we still get emails now of people asking
Scotomata in the Open Access Movement
A blind spot seems to be growing at the *center* (not the edges)
of the Open-Access-Publishing (OApub) road to Open Access (OA). OApub is a
valid and welcome road to OA, but in the minds of many of its proponents
the idea seems to have grown that
There will be an Open Access conference October 20-22 in Berlin. Below
is a URL for the conference, followed by the abstract of my own paper
(to be given in session 4.3):
OPEN ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE IN THE SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
(organized by the Max Planck Society in association with
[Identity deleted] wrote:
I agree with you completely that we need to persuade many more academic
authors to self-archive, and... we have been working to achieve this.
I know and appreciate that some funding and advocacy support has been
given to self-archiving worldwide: Yet though it may
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Sally Morris wrote:
In my opinion, you definitely should not do it without the author's
permission - and in each case checking whether the publisher allows the
author to deposit the peer-reviewed, published version or not
Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, [Identity Deleted] wrote:
Stevan,
[Identity Deleted], our electronic resources coordinator, was inspired by
your quote of 55% of journals allowing self-archiving to ask why we don't
just go back and retrospectively add that 55% to a University archive.
[
Association of Research Libraries
mkshea...@sprint.ca
- Original Message -
From: Stevan Harnad
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access Status: R
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003
27 matches
Mail list logo
