> As to the latter issue, one can argue that institutionally-provided > Internet access and use of proxies do blur the distinction. For > instance, I have no obvious way to determine if Morris & Thorn's > paper, which I freely accessed from home (with proxy) on the publisher > website, is OA or not (a Google Scholar search seems to indicate it > isn't).
Interesting point. Has anyone ever considered developing an 'OA' button (a bit like the CC ones) that can be added to individual articles? I'm not quite sure how this would work, since one wouldn't want individual authors to have to add the button to every document that they upload, but if the repository could be made to automatically add it each time a document is uploaded or served it might help raise awareness? Andy Andy Powell Research Programme Director Eduserv andy.pow...@eduserv.org.uk 01225 474319 / 07989 476710 www.eduserv.org.uk efoundations.typepad.com twitter.com/andypowe11 ________________________________________ From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Marc Couture [jaamcout...@gmail.com] Sent: 18 January 2010 16:25 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Roundtable Press Release (Access to Research Results) On 17-Jan-10, at 2:39 PM, Sally Morris wrote: > > Those who look beyond the abstract will find that we did, indeed, ask > where they looked for articles > As one who has indeed looked beyond the abstract (read the whole paper in fact), I have some difficulty understanding what the authors mean precisely by "using", "accessing" "identifying" self-archived articles, as well as by "whenever possible", so that it is somewhat difficult to sort out the various numbers and percentages stated in p. 230-231, including those quoted in previous posts. Perhaps the exact wording of the questionnaire would help clarify the issue, but unfortunately the DOI-based hyperlink to Appendix 1: Text of survey (http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/2009318) don't seem to work. What I think I can deduce is that close to 50% of those who didn't have access to the published version didn't even look for a self-archived version (but I'm not sure if I my reasoning is right, because the paper refers to those who "did not [never?] use self-archived versions"). And we don't know how often those who did look for such a version were able to find one. What I found most interesting though - and more useful, from an OA-advocacy standpoint - is the fact that there was much confusion among participants about what is a repository, and whether an article (or journal) is OA or not. As to the latter issue, one can argue that institutionally-provided Internet access and use of proxies do blur the distinction. For instance, I have no obvious way to determine if Morris & Thorn's paper, which I freely accessed from home (with proxy) on the publisher website, is OA or not (a Google Scholar search seems to indicate it isn't). Marc Couture