Rick Anderson wrote:
Researchers tend to see OA models as presenting a mixed bag of upsides
and downsides (as any publishing model does).
Open Access is NOT a publishing model. It is a descriptive binary property of
an article: is it available electronically, without fee, from an easily
Open Access is NOT a publishing model
Exactly right. OA is a characteristic of an item of scholarly literature. Not
even of a journal or publisher (though all items/articles they publish may of
course be OA, in which case the terms 'OA journal' and 'OA publisher' are
shorthand for that).
This
Jan,
There are reasons for requiring green deposit even where an article is
already OA on the journal. First, that canchange - one of my articles was
published in a new Journal (Vol 2(2)) which a couple of years later was sold
by bepress to iley and became closed - very annoyingly to me on
] On Behalf
Of Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 11:41 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Jan Velterop
Cc: Rick Anderson; scholc...@ala.org; LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: [GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Unanimity (Re: Monographs)
Jan,
There are reasons for requiring
By unanimity I believe Professor Harnad means among people he knows.
Joe Esposito
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote:
there is unanimity among researchers about desiring -- even if not
daring, except if mandated, to provide -- OA to peer-reviewed
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote:
*SH: *there is unanimity among researchers about desiring -- even if not
daring, except if mandated, to provide -- OA to peer-reviewed journal
articles
If researchers unanimously desired OA, then there would be an
Independent and critical thinking researchers will act according to the
evidence: depend on it. They may be slow, but they are not stupid…
Not only do I agree that they're not stupid, I wouldn't even say that they're
slow. And as for acting according to the evidence, I couldn't agree with you
