Leslie Carr writes >sh> It is such a small issue that it does not belong in a general >sh> discussion of open access and self-archiving for researchers. > >tc> You constantly belittle techncial problems, and then you wonder >tc> why the archives are staying empty or do not exist. Answer: because >tc> these "technical problems" have not been solved. By belittling >tc> them, you put yourself in the way of finding a solution. > > You know, I wonder if that's the case. I can see your point, and I > won't argue that EPrints, or DSpace, or arxiv provides perfect > technical solutions to every imaginable problem or the perfect user > interface for every user.
I did not express myself well I wrote, I meant to say that much of what Stevan belittles as "technical" is in fact symptomatic of wider social issue that impact on the academic self-documentation process. > (I will refrain here from speaking of RePeC, since I don't know of > any shortcomings that it may have :-) One obvious example is the captialization of the name that folks don't seem to get right :-) > I think this area (academic motivation) is quite > likely to hold the key to the missing content. That is what I have been saying all along. You have to give academics the motivation to participate. A reliance on carrot and stick from central administration is not likely to be sufficient. > Certainly in local discussions several solutions have been > suggested, but no agreement on a "globally optimal" solution has > been reached :-) Sure, because a global solution is not there, it depends on the discipline. Some will get to self-archive slowly some fast, some not at all. I can surly imagine a situation where for legal scholarship you have to pay, but where physics is free. With greetings from Minsk, Belarus, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel