control.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Feb 5, 2014 8:30 AM, Sally Morris sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
wrote:
I find Andrew's experience surprising. When Cox Cox last looked into
this
(in 2008), 53% of publishers requested a copyright transfer, 20.8% asked
for
a licence to publish instead, and 6.6
that, but didn't.
That makes institutions invisible unless the institution pays up.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter
wouter.gerrit...@wur.nlwrote:
Hi Stevan,
** **
Google Scholar is a very good fulltext scholarly search engine, no doubt
about
IT or technical services, so there's a huge blind
spot for this field. If you look, lots of places have 0 OAI PMH dublin
core records, but they have files up. Those places are where a difference
may be most dramatic.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Longva Leif leif.lon...@uit.no
would come from that.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Heather Morrison hgmor...@sfu.ca wrote:
Possible solution?
IF a funding agency were to require that any open access article
processing fees covered by their funding require both CC-BY AND active
deposit in a trusted
that it gives patrons your link-resolver. It's clearly not trying to be
solely an open access discovery tool.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Omega Alpha Open Access
oa.openacc...@gmail.com wrote:
Les/Peter,
The problem I see with the many is the problem of FRAGMENTATION
researcher. Even if access
for researchers were an easier mandate to push through politically (which it
might not be), if the goal is to avoid friction then maybe looking at the
friction years out in defining and redefining researcher is something to
consider.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012
to having a database just for your
topic so that no totally irrelevant results show up.
So, what are the big OA search engines, anyway? Just throwing it out,
since without a way to find content, that content may as well not exist.
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM
