On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:
The first is that the primary means of achieving Open Access should be by
deposit in either an institutional repository (for those researchers with
an
institutiona such as a research lab or a university) or in a single
Peter,
Thank you for the correction. I mis-remembered the mandate from these (I
think a bit confusingly named) systems. Too late to send a correction to an
organisation like the White House. Hopefully if anyone who understand it well
enough for it to be useful actually reads it, they will
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Andrew A. Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp wrote:
Peter,
Thank you for the correction. I mis-remembered the mandate from these (I
think a bit confusingly named) systems.
It's even more confusing with Medline, PubMed and PubMedCentral all from
NIH.
On your point
Andrew
Even if deposit locally and then harvest centrally is easy (and I would argue
that it makes far more sense to do it the other way round, not least as a
central repository like Europe PMC would have to harvest content from
potentially hundreds of repositories) the real problem is this
Only Andrew Adams has shown a full and realistic grasp of the
contingencies. He is spot-on in every respect (except mixing up BMC
withPMC!).
1. The only substantive issue is *how to get peer-reviewed journal articles
to be made Open Access (OA), today.*
2. Twenty years of evidence shows that --
I assume that your problems with harvesting repositories are the publisher
objections on the principle that the *author* is allowed to decide to deposit
in the appropriate place, but that a third party does not have the right to
make a deposit independently of the author's wishes. (For the
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Rebecca Kennison rrkenni...@gmail.comwrote:
[I] can say with certainty that what you suggest would be impossible for
most institutions to accomplish on their own, even if they wanted to do so.
A designated repository -- or several designated repositories -- that
On your point on central deposit, I beg to differ, as you
know. Deposit locally then harvest centrally is far more sensible
than trying to mandate different deposit loci for the various authors
in an institution.
Peter Murray-Rust replied:
This is not axiomatic. The protein community
Peter,
You're talking about a very narrow subset of science here. I'm talking about
all of academic scholarship that is published in journals. Yes, the stuff
you're talking about is a small minority of academic research. A quick search
seems to show that much of Crystallography is open
Hey, let's be realistic. For most purposes text plus pictures is adequate.
Add videos if you must. Your average repository can cope with all that,
integrated into a pdf. We've probably got 95% coverage. One cannot easily
search pictures or video, but must rely on metadata and surrounding clues.
10 matches
Mail list logo
