[GOAL] Open Repositories Conference Update: OR2014 Proposal Deadline Extended
Open Repositories Conference Update: OR2014 Proposal Deadline Extended A message from the Open Repositories 2014 Conference organizers Helsinki, Finland. The final deadline for submitting proposals for the Ninth International Conference on Open Repositories (#or2014) has been extended until Monday, Feb. 10, 2014. The conference is scheduled to take place June 9-13 in Helsinki and is being hosted by University of Helsinki's twin libraries: Helsinki University Library and the National Library of Finland. The theme this year is Towards Repository Ecosystems emphasizing the interconnected nature of repositories, institutions, technologies, data and the people who make it all work together. You may review the call for proposals here: http://or2014.helsinki.fi/?page_id=281. This year the Open Repositories team will be operating a pilot programme to offer a small number of 'registration fee only' scholarships for this conference. Details will be announced on the conference website when registration opens. Submit your proposal here: https://www.conftool.com/or2014/ by Feb. 10, 2014. We look forward to seeing you at OR2014! ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Speech by Dutch junior minister in Berlin
On 29 January 2014 13:43, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: (*5*) Dekker apparently misunderstands that all peer-reviewed journal articles are peer-reviewed, whether Gold or Green. Researchers will have to go through the peer review process whilst at the same time publishing another version in a local repository. What's more, the quality of the publications is also unclear: especially for users outside the scientific world, it will be hard to discern the status of quality insurance of all these local repositories. I guess you can take that any way you want, but I don't see any statement about articles in repositories not being peer-reviewed. What there is, is a question mark about what the version in the repository actually represents - it could be the publisher's version, it could be the author's copy following peer-review, it could be a version before any peer-review changes were made. Apart from the publisher's PDF, you've probably only got an author-provided statement as to what the version is, if that. What editorial / review processes has the repository gone through? There are certainly repositories out there that do not review at all the author submission, and act later to remove content that shouldn't have been posted if they are alerted to it. Publisher's will check to see if an author has posted a version they were not entitled to, but if the posting doesn't breach copyright, who is checking that it has been clearly and correctly described? So, what Dekker says is not the Green article may not be peer-reviewed, but asks how do we know that it represents the peer-reviewed material. When repositories do not make it clear to people downloading papers what process of review the deposit went through, that's not an unreasonable question to ask. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Springer launches first open access journal in Religion: International Journal of Dharma Studies
Springer launches first open access journal in Religion: International Journal of Dharma Studies http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/springer-launches-first-open-access-journal-in-religion-international-journal-of-dharma-studies/ It was almost two years ago that I received an email from the then publishing editor in Religion and Philosophy at Springer Science+Business Media expressing an interest by the publisher to launch open access journals in Religion. I wrote about the conversation I had with the editor in response to that email back in March 2012. At that point Springer had no open access journals in Religious Studies, although it published seven subscription-based journals in the discipline. This has now changed. At the end of 2013 the International Journal of Dharma Studies (ISSN 2196-8802) launched on the SpringerOpen platform. Continues… Gary F. Daught Omega Alpha | Open Access Advocate for open access academic publishing in religion and theology http://oaopenaccess.wordpress.com/ oa.openaccess at gmail dot com | @OAopenaccess ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Speech by Dutch junior minister in Berlin
Video: *OA Isn't Rocket Science* http://timswww.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/video-stevan-harnad-oa-isnt-rocket.html (On the topic of versions, see herehttps://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#c2coff=1hl=enlr=q=versions+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/safe=activetbas=0tbm=blg, and the Green OA Self-Archiving FAQ #23http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#23.Version ) On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.comwrote: On 29 January 2014 13:43, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: (*5*) Dekker apparently misunderstands that all peer-reviewed journal articles are peer-reviewed, whether Gold or Green. Researchers will have to go through the peer review process whilst at the same time publishing another version in a local repository. What's more, the quality of the publications is also unclear: especially for users outside the scientific world, it will be hard to discern the status of quality insurance of all these local repositories. I guess you can take that any way you want, but I don't see any statement about articles in repositories not being peer-reviewed. What there is, is a question mark about what the version in the repository actually represents - it could be the publisher's version, it could be the author's copy following peer-review, it could be a version before any peer-review changes were made. Apart from the publisher's PDF, you've probably only got an author-provided statement as to what the version is, if that. What editorial / review processes has the repository gone through? There are certainly repositories out there that do not review at all the author submission, and act later to remove content that shouldn't have been posted if they are alerted to it. Publisher's will check to see if an author has posted a version they were not entitled to, but if the posting doesn't breach copyright, who is checking that it has been clearly and correctly described? So, what Dekker says is not the Green article may not be peer-reviewed, but asks how do we know that it represents the peer-reviewed material. When repositories do not make it clear to people downloading papers what process of review the deposit went through, that's not an unreasonable question to ask. G ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
