All -
I know that at this point Alma and Stevan would expect me to point out
that - as well as OA IRs - there are other systems maintained by funders
and research institutions.
These are called CRIS (Current Research Information Systems)and there is
an EU Recommendation to member states (i.e. a
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Thomas Krichel
wrote:
> Â TK:
>> Â [If NIH and other funders were to stipulate that institutional
IRs
>> Â are to be the preferred locus of deposit then]
>  [T]he funder  [1] would still have to be aware of all
institutional
> Â repositories, [2] harvest the met
A quick reply to Alma, especially as I see that we are beginning to - should I
use the word? - converge... :-)
-Original Message-
American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Alma Swan
Sat 7/26/2008 1:51 AM
Good point, except that in the institutions with most self-archiving going
Hre I fully agree with Alma.
Dependence on publishers must - I repeat "must" - cease. Division of labour on
a just basis is conceivable; dependence is not!!!
Jean-Claude Guédon
Oh, Fred, I'm sorry to have unwittingly goaded you into responding. But...
Fred Friend wrote:
> Oh dear! I have avoided contributing to this discussion
> because it has saddened me to see so much disagreement about
> the various ways to achieve OA when we are all working so
> hard to achieve OA by
> I can readily see that bringing back the local output from a
> central depository creates a bit of work for a library, but
> given that in many institutions, self-archiving is a myth,
> and archiving is done by librarians anyway, I would like to
> know which is the most demanding route: checking
Alma Swan writes
> True, we shouldn't get too wound up about this. Interoperability
> means that back-harvesting, forward-harvesting and
> upside-down-harvesting can go on wherever appropriate but it is a
> shame that we have arrived at a point where universities, the
> mainstays of our societie
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Klaus Graf
wrote:
> It's pure arrogance to think that only authors at an institution
> should be privileged to deposit OA papers.
It certainly would be pure arrogance to think that, and no one is
thinking or proposing it.
Â
> Freelance-scholars must have a disc
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Michael Eisen
wrote:
> There are some interesting threads in the discussion about whether
the
> NIH should have mandated deposition into institutional archives.
But
> the discussion is really kind of pointless, because, as we like to
say
> in these parts "it ain't
