OK, Stevan, you mentioned biology, so I imagine you expect a reply from
me.
I agree with you that ecology -- in combination with other terms -- is a
sufficient descriptor. The evidence for this is the not very helpful
separate attempts of both
Biological Abstracts and Zoological Record to divide t
I basically agree with Thomas Krichel on all the substantive points:
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:
> institutional archives will lie empty unless there are better
> incentives for scholars to contribute to them. If you tell
> them that it will open their scholarship to the worl
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>sh> our rewards (research
>sh> grant funding and overheads, salaries, postdocs and students attracted
>sh> to our research, prizes and honors) are intertwined and shared with our
>sh> institutions (our employers) and not our disciplines (which are often
On Sun. Mar 16 Thomas Krichel wrote:
Lee Miller writes
> The simplest way to aggregate papers within disciplines would be include a
> discipline field in the metadata. .. Thus inclusion of the discipline
> desciptor "ecology" would allow aggregation of papers at a level that has
> alrea
dear Colleagues,
I agree with Thomas that instead of 'enforce' you have to 'encourage'
showing the chance to get better seen by his/her scientific community
if he/she does some specific steps.
As an example: our Department has stopped ordering all high price journals
(keeping only those below 200
