Arthur Sale wrote:
Hey, let's be realistic. For most purposes text plus pictures is adequate.
Add videos if you must. Your average repository can cope with all that,
integrated into a pdf. We've probably got 95% coverage. One cannot easily
search pictures or video, but must rely on metadata
...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew A. Adams
Sent: 25 February 2013 08:18
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8
Suggestions
Arthur Sale wrote:
Hey, let's be realistic. For most purposes text plus pictures is
adequate.
Add
Andrew Adams is so right, on every single points he made.
In a few moments (noon UK time) I will post an embargoed proposal from
HEFCE REF that proposes to require exactly what Andrew Adams is urging, for
very much the same reasons.
SH
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013 10:24 PM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8
Suggestions
I seem to recall that, in various surveys, one of the features found most
useful by readers was linking to other
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:
The first is that the primary means of achieving Open Access should be by
deposit in either an institutional repository (for those researchers with
an
institutiona such as a research lab or a university) or in a single
Peter,
Thank you for the correction. I mis-remembered the mandate from these (I
think a bit confusingly named) systems. Too late to send a correction to an
organisation like the White House. Hopefully if anyone who understand it well
enough for it to be useful actually reads it, they will
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:
Peter,
Thank you for the correction. I mis-remembered the mandate from these (I
think a bit confusingly named) systems.
It's even more confusing with Medline, PubMed and PubMedCentral all from
NIH.
On your point
Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Andrew A. Adams
Sent: 24 February 2013 12:18
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Murray-Rust, Peter
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8
Suggestions
Peter
A. Adams
Sent: 24 February 2013 12:18
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Murray-Rust, Peter
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8
Suggestions
Peter,
Thank you for the correction. I mis-remembered the mandate from these (I
think a bit
On your point on central deposit, I beg to differ, as you
know. Deposit locally then harvest centrally is far more sensible
than trying to mandate different deposit loci for the various authors
in an institution.
Peter Murray-Rust replied:
This is not axiomatic. The protein community
Peter,
You're talking about a very narrow subset of science here. I'm talking about
all of academic scholarship that is published in journals. Yes, the stuff
you're talking about is a small minority of academic research. A quick search
seems to show that much of Crystallography is open
for specialized repositories.
Arthur Sale
-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013 11:24 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access
Here is a message I sent to the US White House about the OATP Presidential
mandate.
First I would like to express my support and thanks for the announcement of
the policy on open access to scientific literature announced by Dr John
Holdren. This is an important expansion of themove towards
13 matches
Mail list logo
