On Wed, 5 May 2004, Richard Poynder wrote:
> I agree that self-archiving and OA publishing are frequently and
> inaccurately conflated, and that I am sometimes guilty of this myself.
No, dear Richard, it is OA and OA publishing that are conflated (i.e., treated
as
if they were the same thing). O
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Although it was the library community and its journal budget crisis that
> first brought the research-access problem to the research community's
> attention, the journal-pricing problem and the research-access problem
> are not the same problem!
I agree that self-archiving
On Wed, 5 May 2004, Robert Kiley wrote:
> It is recognised that there are here are two ways to provide OA:
>
> (1) publishing articles in OA journals and
>
> (2) publishing them in conventional journals but self-archiving them
> publicly on the web as well.
>
> One problem with route 2
The likelihood is the user searched Google before they tried Pubmed or
ScienceDirect:
"Ingelfinger Over-Ruled harnad" comes up with an OA version as the top
match.
With OAI and OpenURL the OA version could be linked in as easily as the
aggregators currently linked to by PubMed (although perhaps
It is recognised that there are here are two ways to provide OA:
(1) publishing articles in OA journals and
(2) publishing them in conventional journals but self-archiving them
publicly on the web as well.
One problem with route 2 that doesn't seem to have been fully addressed
is how
Those [publishers] mentioned invested in the industry [with] knowledge
of the possibilities, including OA.
Presumably either they thought they would obtain sufficient return in
the time remaining, or they thought we would not succeed with OA.
That they might prove to have been wrong in their estim
Robert Kiley writes:
>It is recognised that there are here are two ways to provide OA:
>(1) publishing articles in OA journals and
>(2) publishing them in conventional journals but self-archiving them
>publicly on the web as well.
>
>One problem with route 2 that doesn't seem to have b
I think the report (at
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/images/costs_business_7955.pdf) needs to
be read rather carefully
The cost figures are not new, but make sensible use of previously
published figures (whether or not these have been updated to current
values I am not sure); the separation of 'pe
