Hi Arthur,
I don't understand how a link is more useful than a copy (although
obviously having both is preferable)?
Let us say that either a) an author imports a record from a publisher
with link or b) pastes a link into the repository. Either way, that link
tells us nothing about the state of
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marin Dacos marin.da...@openedition.org
Subject: [BOAI] Who is afraid of open access ?
Date: 21 March, 2013 4:06:20 AM EDT
Dear colleagues,
The French newspaper Le Monde has published a public statement,
signed by sixty members of the academic community
Am 21.03.13 10:35, schrieb Tim Brody:
By comparison, taking a copy is little extra effort and the institution
can say unambiguously that they have an open access copy.
wrong: if somebody uploads a PDF the institution
- may have a /*copy*/ if the identity of the file submitted or its
An immediate-deposit mandate moots most of this discussion. Versions and rights
need
not be checked if the mandate simply says:
Deposit the refereed draft immediately, and make it Closed Access.
So all this discussion is about what *else* you can do, and when.
Here's a list:
1. A sensible
Tim
Let me put it simply. A true copy is as good as a link. Not better, but the
same. But a true copy is difficult to ensure.
The odds are significant that the copy is not true.
· Let us assume that the copying process makes a copy of the file to
which the link refers.
· It
Sorry Stevan. My recent reply to Tim answers most of these points. Please
remember than I am an ICT professional.
The ones that are not refuted by that reply (or require emphasis) are:
. All author deposits must be audited. They may be in error and may
even be fraudulent. There is
