The real issue is to do with usage rights. Can any article that is presented as
being OA just be read with human eyes, or also be re-used and used for
text-mining? The answer in my view should be 'yes', re-use and text-mining,
too, whether the article is in a repository, a personal web site, or
of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo. 80204 USA
(303) 556-5936
jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu
image001.jpg
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Jan Velterop
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:24 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor
/openaccess, is often exceedingly slow and
therefore difficult to consult if you don't have a lot of time).
Jan
On 9 May 2012, at 16:48, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeffrey,
All research articles in BMC journals are OA, BOAI
Alicia,
Some publishers are often criticised, you're right, and I agree that they
shouldn't be for just being an established scholarly publisher. And I don't
think they are as often as you perhaps assume. It is the policies and business
models that are criticised rather than the publishers per
I agree with Tim. Doesn't the 'NC' in CC-BY-NC just mean I can't make money
from it and I would resent it if you could ?
Jan Velterop
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
**
Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEO
Academic Concept Knowledge Ltd. (AQnowledge)
+44
.
It should ? and in my judgment it will ? be socially and professionally
unacceptable for any researcher who wishes to be taken seriously to keep his or
her published results behind barriers.
Jan Velterop
On 29 Mar 2012, at 02:47, Stevan Harnad wrote:
No flames, Peter. I said researcher
analyses.
Best,
Jan Velterop
On 26 Apr 2012, at 11:38, Sridhar Gutam wrote:
Dear All,
In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of Medicinal and
Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) http://www.oajmap.in from Medicinal and Aromatic
Plants Association of India (MAPAI) http
be aimed at making the argument for OA strengthening the societal
relevance of science, an argument that any scientist with a healthy dose of
self-interest is bound to understand and take on board. Funders such as the
Wellcome Trust are already doing important work in that regard.
Jan Velterop
On 28
-- is also in the public
interest -- if doing (and funding) research at all is...
Stevan
On 2012-04-28, at 10:05 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
Stevan sees the issue of providing open access primarily to scientists as
strategic. I would have described it as tactical at best, but the main
prescriptions for the means helps keep the focus on the goal and also
leaves the door open for imaginative ways of convincing researchers, funders
and institutions, and even of achieving more OA in possibly more effective ways.
Jan Velterop
On 1 May 2012, at 11:54, Stevan Harnad wrote:
I
at gmail.com
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jan Velterop velterop at gmail.com wrote:
I would simplify it further:
Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress,
funders and institutions
, May 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jan Velterop velterop at gmail.com wrote:
Eric,
Why the second sentence? As long 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
Strict logic is not what we win the battle for open access with. Some celebrity
involvement is to be welcomed. On a visceral level the success of Wikipedia
(not a logical outcome at the outset on the basis of the premises) may well
influence the perception of open access.
Jan Velterop
On 2
) for a service if you
don't want to pay. And if you want a service and are prepared to pay, don't pay
by transferring copyright, but just with plain old money.
Jan Velterop
Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity and typos.
On 20 Jun 2012, at 14:29, Andrew A. Adams
On 20 Jun 2012, at 16:21, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On 2012-06-20, at 10:30 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services
by transferring copyright.
Publishers are paid, in full, by institutional subscriptions.
What does 'in full' mean here
is a different one).
Jan Velterop
On 20 Jun 2012, at 17:05, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
It is not a question of hating publishers; it is a question of placing them
in their rightful place. David Prosser, very aptly, defined publishers as a
service industry. This is excellent. Let publishers
comments, of course. Utopia Documents is free and
available, for Mac and Windows (an older Linux version is available and a new
one is expected this summer) from http://utopiadocs.com
Jan Velterop
On 20 Jun 2012, at 12:43, Marcin Wojnarski wrote:
Below is my comment posted originally on Cameron
undergrads may need is
not a paper book, but some computer training.
The only thing missing is the smell of a book. Which is indeed a drawback of
electronic literature.
Best,
Jan Velterop
On 1 Jul 2012, at 23:49, Dana Roth wrote:
In regards e-books in the sciences and engineering
'), and they rely on copyright to do it.
Jan Velterop
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/yr1999/June/comm_990607.html
Apparently, both Stevan Harnad and Eugene Garfield are ignorant of
the definition of publication in the U.S. Copyright
-Original Message-
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 05 September 2002 18:22
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Garfield: Acknowledged Self-Archiving is Not Prior
Publication
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, David Goodman wrote:
with the
conventional journal publishing system.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: David Goodman [mailto:dgood...@phoenix.princeton.edu]
Sent: 12 September 2002 23:55
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Garfield: Acknowledged Self-Archiving...
I certainly
[Moderator's Note. As Jan Velterop is relatively new to this, I have
to point out that cloture means that no more discussion will be
posted on this topic. (This is no reflection on Jan's excellent
commentary!) Albert Henderson's Library-Underfunding-Conspiracy
Hypothesis
, at least not for
scientists and scholars.
Jan Velterop
BioMed Central
Open Access Publishing
e.com
Stevan,
Thanks for your recap and apologies for not always having the time to read
everything you contribute to the discussions in detail.
A propos of the Research Assessment Exercise, the policy director (Bahram
Bekhradnia) of the Higher Education Funding Council, which carries out the
RAE,
bb Where an article is published is an irrelevant issue. A top
bb quality piece of work, in a freely available medium, should get
bb top marks. The issue is really that many assessment panels use
bb the medium of publication, and in particular the difficulty of
bb getting
, and the more advocates of open access speak up, the
easier it's bound to get.
Jan Velterop
in order
of importance. Of course one can subsequently quantify such qualitative
information. But what a known and acknowledged authority thinks of an
article is to many more interesting than what anonymous peer-reviewers
think.
What would you have in mind with regard to accuracy in this regard?
Jan
The semantic whip what is scientometrics? may lash, but doesn't quite
crack, in my opinion. If Stevan says I don't think that in reminding us
[...], Jan is not giving us an alternative to scientometric
quantification., does that mean that he *does* think I *do*?
Good. I didn't even mean to.
I
On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 01:06 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Jan Velterop wrote:
I meant to give an example of a complement to quantification.
Signed open secondary reviews are certainly a complement to both
scientometric measures and primary (peer) reviews. All
(effectively
making them public domain and therefore easily depositable - if that's a
word - in self- or institutional archives).
Best,
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Linda Humphreys
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: 11/29/02 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: UK
between open access journals will no-doubt
emerge eventually, there are so many articles still published 'behind
toll-gates' at the present time, that competition is among the least of our
worries.
With best wishes for 2003, which we all hope will be the year of an open
access 'tipping point'!
Jan
I agree with Mike. Nature's new 'licence' is a
'pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes' version of what Elsevier calls the
'give-backs' and is nothing new at all, just a new PR exercise. Clever PR,
to be sure, but certainly nothing like the [Nature]...again led the
planet's 20,000 peer-reviewed journals in
, to the benefit of science, the researchers themselves, the
institutions and funding agencies, and society as a whole.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Steve Hitchcock [mailto:sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 10 January 2003 03:39
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo
Question to Nature: If it does include an institution-based e-print server
at [one's] university, why not say it like that in the licence and the
FAQs?
Jan
-Original Message-
From: Linda Humphreys [mailto:l.j.humphr...@bath.ac.uk]
Sent: 10 January 2003 09:09
To:
We publish and believe in open access to research articles, but not in a
free lunch. The $500 article processing fee has to be seen in the context of
an amount as much as ten times that, which is currently being forked out per
article by the scientific community.
Jan Velterop
-Original
BioMed Central waives charges for those who cannot stump up the $500 and
make a reasonable case for that.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Alan Story [mailto:a.c.st...@ukc.ac.uk]
Sent: 10 January 2003 16:18
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject
On Saturday, Jan 11, 2003, at 23:16 Europe/London, Stevan Harnad wrote:
JV I agree with Mike. Nature's new 'licence' is a
JV 'pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes' version of what Elsevier calls the
JV 'give-backs' and is nothing new at all, just a new PR exercise.
JV Clever PR...
sh I'm not sure why
up access to science done in developing countries, I
would like to draw this list's attention to the fantastic work that's being
done by Scielo: www.scielo.org
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: ept [mailto:e...@biostrat.demon.co.uk]
Sent: 14 January 2003 15:44
To: american
journals it means download figures of hundreds, sometimes thousands per
month, and rising; figures that leave traditional journals far behind.
Jan Velterop
definition of what open access is is here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/charter.
Jan Velterop
www.biomedcentral.com
-Original Message-
From: Thomas J. Walker [mailto:t...@ufl.edu]
Sent: 30 January 2003 15:18
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject
game with Elsevier.
Success. I shall refrain from publicly expressing my doubt about the
intentions of publishers I know, and let sleeping dogs lie!
Best,
Jan
-Original Message-
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 19 February 2003 17:50
To: Jan Velterop
Cc
. The IFLA manifesto may be
more successful in influencing funders and institutions than earlier
author-oriented manifestoes have been, for the simple reason that it comes
from IFLA.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 31 March 2003 14
Probably of interest to readers of this list:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030616/03
Jan Velterop
BioMed Central
Middlesex House
34-42 Cleveland Street
London W1T 4LB
UK
T. +44 (0)20 7323 0323
www.biomedcentral.com
, and many self-archives and repositories, the real
number of downloads is likely to be appreciably larger.
Jan Velterop
BioMed Central
I think that's a considerable underestimate. I'm sure that
BMC open-access
articles do not get, on average, more or less downloads and
citations than
other
, based on expected numbers of papers
to be published by researchers from the member istitution.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Fytton Rowland [mailto:j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk]
Sent: 22 July 2003 03:45
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re
Just to put plagiarism in perspective:
Copy from one, it's plagiarism; copy from two, it's research.
- Wilson Mizner (1876-1933)
Jan
associated with a file and I
can't quite believe that Elsevier does that, either.
Jan Velterop
BioMed Central
-Original Message-
From: Albert Henderson [mailto:chess...@compuserve.com]
Sent: 08 September 2003 23:21
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject
access publishing and
self-archiving, while both working in parallel to strengthen one another, is
the sense of priority of a qualitative (in terms of usability) versus a
quantitative one.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Stevan Harnad
Sent: 24 October 2003 18:20
To: Stefan Gradmann
Sorry, Stevan, your response is too long to read fully.
This is the 'offending' sentence: ...being able to do *everything* one
could do with paper... That's simply not enough. 'Opening the curtains' is
fine if you want to shed light, but half the time it's night.
Our advice to authors should be:
literature), is incorrect.
Best wishes,
Jan
On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 18:03 Europe/London, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:
Our advice to authors should be:
1. Publish in open access journals when possible;
2. If not possible, self-archive in OAI-compliant
be said of scientific research literature
and that's the message we're giving.
I guess we agree enough to close this discussion and start a new thread in
which we share 'strategies and methods to persuade authors of the benefits
of open access'
Jan Velterop
BioMed Central
that there isn't the
slightest unease of authors from wealthier countries at the thought of
Article Processing Charges we ask them to pay containing an element of
'subsidy' to support articles from their colleagues in less advantaged
countries.
Jan Velterop
BioMed Central
-Original Message
only a few years ago, is now being taken seriously.
The seemingly unstoppable growth in the STM industry is now beginning to be
exposed as a bubble that may burst.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Barry Mahon [mailto:barry.ma...@iol.ie]
Sent: 03 November 2003 13:35
To: american
For the record, I *never* said, suggested, or implied under the same roof.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: 14 December 2003 15:01
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Journals Peer
It would be helpful if self-archiving enthusiasts would see and present
self-archiving as an important step towards achieving open access at the
root of scholarly communication, by eventually having all peer-reviewed
research articles published with full open access from the outset. It is
fully
, and on the very
sh important question of consanguinity: Should there be many independent,
sh competing journals, as now, or a few under the same roof, a possibility
sh Jan Velterop of BioMedCentral has suggested? (Why not just 250?)
sh http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3272.html
On Mon, 15
Sally Morris wrote:
The core, essential feature is free, unrestricted access (to primary
research articles) for everyone. This can take 2 forms:
1)In Stevan's term, 'self-archiving' - posting, generally
by authors or institutions, of preprints, postprints or both, on
Peter,
I beg to differ. Maybe to the letter these things are not 'conditios
sine qua non' for Open Access, but they pretty much are 'conditios sine
qua useless'. The exception is perhaps the copyright provision, as any
copyrightholder can assign the article to Open Access; it doesn't have
to be
Peter,
You're absolutely correct in your observation that our differences are
minute, in the scheme of things. Nonetheless, I think I disagree with
you that we have Open Access if just the price barrier is lifted. I
don't think it's a question of archiving and OAI-compliance (or other
sure-fire
,
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Barbara Kirsop
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: 1/2/04 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
Dear All,
I have sympathised with Stevan's New Year message on the
misunderstandings and digressions regarding
, well, good luck to them), all on
only one stipulation: proper attribution of the author(s).
Best wishes,
Jan Velterop
BioMed Central
-Original Message-
From: Jim Till [mailto:t...@uhnres.utoronto.ca]
Sent: 09 January 2004 02:56
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo
developing
countries to be in the journals of, say, the largest 25 or 50 publishers?
Thanks,
Jan Velterop
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Stable Self-Archiving Software
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote:
The potential for instability you describe lends support
to the necessity of inclusion in the definition of Open
Access of this: ['open access' means
a funding model that *charges* any users or their institutions *for the
online version* are not included unless the online version is *also OPENLY
accessible* to EVERYONE ON THE WEB toll-free?
You gotta be kiddin'. Truisms like this are not clarifying, they are
confusing. This costs you unless we
of the spectrum come together in their
rejection of a practical solution to the problematic issues science
publishing faces?
Deja Vu all over again.
Jan Velterop
BioMedCentral
statement from BioMed Central responds to each of the major
anti-Open Access arguments made during the course of the inquiry so far.
We felt it was important, at this stage when many people are hearing about
Open Access for the first time, to dispel some of these myths, says Jan
Velterop, BioMed
and journals are not bound by any
restrictive contracts and freely available from the KB.
We host the material ourselves on the BioMed Central platform and, in
addition, the Repositories mentioned above function as mirrors.
Jan Velterop
BioMed Central
-Original Message-
From: David Goodman
thought that was its
essence. Quelle naivete.
Jan Velterop
A few excerpts from Roald Hoffmann's letter:
[The editorial] is disappointlingly negative.
[It] loses faith before it starts out.
[It] lacks vision; to me it sounds like the automotive industry in its days
of fighting catalytic converters
to, and will, overcome this hump. Once they do, their
development is likely to speed up tremendously. On the basis of healthy
self-interest, not 'give-away'.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Richard Poynder [mailto:aot...@dsl.pipex.com]
Sent: 18 June 2004 00:36
To: american-scientist-open
' in the last sentence, I
would have thought.
Jan Velterop
www.biomedcentral.com
Interesting. I wonder if this article is self-archived and where to find it.
I can't locate it via Google; just the TA Sage version. Any help is
appreciated. Many thanks in advance.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist
journals. Why should an Open Access world need to have as many journals
as the old subscription world? No problem if it does, but there's no need.
Jan Velterop
www.biomedcentral.com
them all
on the phone), and funders. I'm afraid it's hard work without quick fixes.
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Claude Guédon
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Sent: 04 October 2004 12:59
Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self
with the requirement to publish or
perish).
So if OA is worthwhile at all, it is worthwhile mandating that
researchers
do their part to make it happen.
Couldn't agree more.
Jan Velterop
Swan, A. Brown, S.N. (2004a) JISC/OSI Journal Authors Survey
Report.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents
agree to disagree on certain issues, because they can both
be right: Self-archiving is great, in the short run, but not in my view a
sustainable method for continued OA; OA Publishing is great, but not in your
view a quick enough route to OA. Soit.
Best wishes,
Jan Velterop
Maybe http://www.bio-diglib.com/home/?
Jan Velterop
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On
Behalf Of Jim Till
Sent: 15 December 2004 13:32
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo
*
HUN
D
CAN
AUS
B
P*
BR
F
USA
I
ZA
E
IND
JAP
Jan Velterop
On 15 May 2005, at 00:09, Arthur Sale wrote:
Interesting statistics, Stevan. The only countries in the top 10
outside
Europe are Canada, Australia and the USA. No-one from Asia, Africa
or South
America. Might this be indifference due
is free to set his own house rules.
Jan Velterop
a vote.
Jan Velterop
On 13 Oct 2008, at 12:39, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) wrote:
A timely and very clear reminder
As promised, I am collecting votes (offline, to avoid cluttering up the
list) on whether Stevan should remain as moderator of the list. Please
note
that we are NOT voting
.
For any publisher who needs to hold up his own trousers, a belts and
braces approach is sensible. That doesn't imply double dipping.
Innocent until proven guilty. That applies to publishers as well.
Jan Velterop
On 4 Jul 2009, at 11:21, Stevan Harnad wrote:
A subscription journal charging
Have I been transferred to another list?By accident, perhaps? Or have
I missed something? What have angels to do with OA?
Btw, being on the side of angels is an old Talmudic expression, I
thought.
Johannes (Jan) J M Velterop
Concept Web Alliance - NBIC - ACKnowledge
M +44 7525 026991
Sent from
publisher
willing to take on practically the whole scientific 'ego-system' that's stacked
against it. Just as happened with OA publishing ('gold' OA for cognoscenti).
Well, here is the challenge. Who picks up the gauntlet?
Jan Velterop
Sent from Jan Velterop's iPhone. Please excuse for brevity
, but is in reality quite arbitrary, even spurious.
Jan Velterop
On 29 Oct 2011, at 18:09, Stevan Harnad 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 as follows,
the rest is available at
http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
on subscription
income, as library budgets are shrinking. That is leading to real reform of
academic publishing (though it takes time, and suffers ups and downs). If
'green' speeds up that reform, great. But not by using dubious and disingenuous
arguments like authors are giving away their papers, please.
Jan
.
Jan Velterop
On 4 Jan 2012, at 04:09, Lee Giles wrote:
I would like to ask a counting question since all of this is based
on good counting
and a great deal of faith is placed on the the counters. Even the US
census
knows the issues with doing this and resorts
so much more
valuable to science than OA?Â
Food for thought?
More:Â http://bit.ly/w7uBMG
Jan Velterop
[ Part 2: Attached Text ]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
Behalf Of Jan Velterop
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:32 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Peer review, OA, etc.
Mike,
I totally accept that your discipline suffers from practitioners
I agree with Tim. Doesn't the 'NC' in CC-BY-NC just mean I can't make money
from it and I would resent it if you could ?
Jan Velterop
        â â  ⢠⢠⢠ ⢠⢠⢠ â â
**
Drs Johannes (Jan) Velterop, CEOAcademic Concept
analyses.
Best,
Jan Velterop
On 26 Apr 2012, at 11:38, Sridhar Gutam wrote:
Dear All,
In the year 2009, when we launched the Open Access Journal of
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (OAJMAP) http://www.oajmap.in from
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Association of India (MAPAI
Just a note to express my support and 100% agreement with Peter and Arthur.
Jan Velterop
On 28 Apr 2012, at 10:00, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
Stevan
I disagree with you in one regard. I
be aimed at making the argument for OA strengthening the societal
relevance of science, an argument that any scientist with a healthy dose of
self-interest is bound to understand and take on board. Funders such as the
Wellcome Trust are already doing important work in that regard.
Jan Velterop
On 28
-- is also in the public
interest -- if doing (and funding) research at all is...
Stevan
On 2012-04-28, at 10:05 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
Stevan sees the issue of providing open access primarily to scientists as
strategic. I would have described it as tactical at best, but the main
Just a note to express my support and 100% agreement with Peter and Arthur.
Jan Velterop
On 28 Apr 2012, at 10:00, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
Stevan
I disagree with you in one regard. I
All very well, Andrew, but did it ever occur to you that when there is no wide
cultural or societal support for whatever law or mandate, more effort is
generally being spent on evasion than on compliance and enforcement turns out
to be like mopping up with the tap still running? If you insist
: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jan Velterop
velte...@gmail.com wrote:
I would simplify it further:
Because Open Access (OA) maximises research
usage
, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jan Velterop velte...@gmail.com wrote:
Eric,
Why the second sentence? As long as they require 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
Strict logic is not what we win the battle for open access with. Some celebrity
involvement is to be welcomed. On a visceral level the success of Wikipedia
(not a logical outcome at the outset on the basis of the premises) may well
influence the perception of open access.
Jan Velterop
On 2
On 2 May 2012, at 13:32, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Andrew is so right (and the current UK government is showing as much good
sense in turning to JW as they showed for many years in turning to RM).
Wikipedia is based on the antithesis of peer review. Asking JW to help make
sure peer-reviewed
On 2 May 2012, at 15:31, Stevan Harnad wrote:
On 2012-05-02, at 9:28 AM, Jan Velterop wrote:
On 2 May 2012, at 13:32, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Andrew is so right (and the current UK government is showing as much good
sense in turning to JW as they showed for many years in turning to RM
On 9 May 2012, at 00:53, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
Jan Velterop wrote:
The trouble with focussing on 'green', rather than on full
BOAI-compliant OA for research literature, is that it has become an a
priori concession and an end in itself. That only confuses matters (as
do ill-defined labels
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
