David, I understand but my point is would you be able to archive unless your university provided and paid for the facility? Iain.
> Iain Stevenson wrote: > > >(a). Implicitly, the publication model of open-access and self-archiving > >reflects the publishing culture of Anglo-American STM research, well-funded > >with grants that include publication costs and I suspect also salaried > >research assistantsa nd post-docs to do the leg-work in archiving. In the > >tradition of social science and humanities research, typified by sole > >researchers with smallish (or no) grants, self-archiving probably isn't > easily achieved, unless the institution where the worker is based provides, > staffs > and pays for a self-archiving system. And where does that leave the > self-funded independent scholar who is still a feature of many of the > soft-sciences? > > I have to disagree. As a researcher in a humanities department, with limited > grants, no salaried assistants and no postdocs, I've found no serious > obstacles to self-archiving. The software (I have deposited papers in two > different > archives both of them running eprints) is easy to use, registration simple > and clear, > and the process of archiving a paper takes very little time. > > (I'm 'lucky' to work in the philosophy of science and cognitive science, both > of > which have eprints archives, but I'm presently agitating/archivangelising for > my > university to set up an institutional archive.)
