I, for one, am glad than Stevan has finally said that >... The preprint-plus-corrigenda strategy is a > "virtual strategy" (more like a thought-experiment or a reductio ad > absudrdum). I have no idea how many people are actually doing it (you'd > have to search OAIster to see), but it's main function is to reassure > researchers conceptually that self-archiving is still possible even if > they elect to ask their publishers, and even if their publishers say no. > > The fact, however, is that for 12 years physicists (and mathematicians, > and computer scientists) have already been self-archiving without > bothering to ask! The P+C strategy is just intended for those who have > not yet begun self-archiving because they believed there was something > about copyright to prevent them from doing it. > > And I meant the "name-and-shame" strategy in the same sense: Not to > actually do it and shame publishers, but in order to give them a graphic > picture of what it would look like if publishers forced authors to use > P+C. > > Cheers, Stevan >
To me, this is the plain meaning of what he advocates. I am much more confident about supporting it in this light, than as a permanent strategy. Dr. David Goodman Princeton University and Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU dgood...@princeton.edu
