David Guest wrote: > 3. I wonder whether it would have been legally safer to blog this > report, perhaps even after sending it somewhere like Tim's > pubmedcentral.
Hard to be certain without having seen the report, but I suspect that in retrospect Ken could have written a paper describing the report and submitted the paper to one of the BioMed Central open access journals, with a PDF of the entire report as an appendix to the paper. The paper (and to some extent the appendix) would then be peer-reviewed and if accepted (probably after a round or two of emendations to keep the reviewers happy), the whole lot (including the full report as an appendix to the paper) would be published on the BioMed central Web site (with servers located in London) for all deity-of-your-choice's children to access for free, and archival copies would have been automatically forwarded to and accessible from teh PubMed Central web site operated by the US National Library of Medicine as well as similar biomedical archives in Germany and Sweden. And it would have been listed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, plain old Google etc etc in perpetuity. All that might have taken several months, but not only would the peer-review add credibility to the monograph, but the distributed archiving would ensure long-term access - the underlying principle is referred to as LOCKSS - Lots Of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe - in this case, from the finite-length arm of the Law. But too late to do any of that now - at least not until the injunction is lifted. But worth bearing in mind for the future. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
