With points 10-14 Stevan has rather deftly restated the OA IR as a
mandate, managed within the policy and business unit of the
institution with a view to monitoring implementation and compliance.
What we currently think of as an IR, some software managed by
computing services and/or the library,
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
I am a little puzzled by Stevan Harnad's accusation of
hypothetical
conditional. When he writes: It would certainly have put APA in
a
very bad light if, having given its authors the green light to
self-archive in their own IRs, APA then decided
[ The following text is in the Windows-1252 character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
If that publisher seeks to profit from NIH's gratuitous insistence on
institution-external deposit, by treating PMC
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:51 AM, matt.hodgkin...@biomedcentral.com
wrote:
Nonsense. Stevan is simply trying to opportunistically use this
unfair charge by APA as a wedge to force a change in NIH policy.
One is free to see absence of sense where one fails to see sense, but
I wonder what Matt
** Apologies for Cross-Posting ** [see also PART
I and PART 0]
Peter Suber: At the moment, I see two conflicting APA
statements and no evidence that either statement
[2002 or 2008] took the other into account. So I'm still
waiting for a definitive clarification
