On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Terry Martin wrote:
sh It would be nice to see the actual figures on Law Reviews' self-archiving
sh policies, though. Does anyone actually have the data -- or a list of the
email
sh addresses that I could send a query to?
I'll save you the trouble. As incoming chair of the
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, [identity deleted] wrote:
I've written to you a couple of times asking for permission to forward
posts to my serials class list, and you very graciously granted me the OK.
Now I have a question. I know that in reality things are not so simple as
the one biggest issue, yet
Dan Hunter may be merely asking the California Law Review to become
'green', which is to formally support author self-archiving, but if
so perhaps it could be put more succinctly and more practically. As it
stands, there seem to be some obvious faults in the argument. First Dan
Hunter says
In
Hi Stevan,
I've been following the open access discussion for a while now and may be
writing a law review article on the subject in the not-too-distant future.
I'll likely be reiterating some of the points you've been making in a
number of fora. In the meantime, the answer to your question is
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Michael Carroll wrote:
I've been following the open access discussion for a while now
and may be writing a law review article on the subject in the
not-too-distant future. I'll likely be reiterating some of the
points you've been making in a number of fora.
The law professor gets it. The (untenured) law professor just doesn't
have the bargaining position to negotiate a change in the contract when
the elite journals (that I rely on to get tenure) have explicitly said
that they won't negotiate contract terms and that if I don't like it I
can piss
I have to agree 100% with Dan Hunter here, rather than with my
institutional colleague and friend, Steve Hitchcock: Open access
is *not* about individual authors somehow having to fix their
copyright agreements with their publishers. If that were the only
road, or the main road to open access, I
