I fully agree with Stevan Harnad on this point.
An Open Access publisher should be deemed to be so only if, besides publishing
at least one OA journal, etc..., it does not block self-archiving. Letting
publishers in with the policies Styevan details below is simply silly, or
worse...
Jean-Clau
Work on book citations is in progress in Brazil,but more is needed.
Metrics are fine, but should not be fetishized either. In any case, the objects
to be measured should be conceptualized with care, given that the humanities
are non-paradigmatic in their discursive structure. Citations may not b
The debate below has been going on for quite a while, with quite a few people
(including myself). Stevan is right to say that the journal affordability
problem and access to research should not be conflated, but he should clarify
the perspectives that indeed support this distinction. Insead, I h
Back to old points, but I cannot let them pass.
Jean-Claude guédon
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Wed 10/28/2009 10:54 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Interview with Professo
This would be all too simple. All four lists, Web of Science, Scopus, ERIH
andAERES deal onluy with refereed journals. Moreover, the last two of these
ists (ERIH and AERES) were built through a series of consultations with
academic colleagues. So, we are talking about reputable journals here, no
I simply do not understand how the first part below responds to my remark about
elitism.
, For the second part, I do not believe that an article enters the scientific
arena simply by being posted. If that were so, Wikipedia would be considered to
be scientific and some scientists would publish
If top journals are "top quality" journals, is it not interesting to see how
the notion of "quality" is constructed?
If it is constructed through measurements such as impact factors, as is
generally the case, is it not interesting to see how journals are accepted or
excluded by the company that
Reading Stevan Harnad's argument in the midst of a trip in South Africa and in
Brazil provides an interesting interpretive backdrop. I am referring
specifically to the following passage:
>> The fact that the vast majority of Gold OA journals are not
>> paid-publication journals is not relevant i
I had always assumed that this list dealt with policy issues, not styles of
expression.
Just a remark done with a smile (and no cynicism). And indeed, as I have had
the opportunity to express it a little while ago, "le style, c'est l'homme"
(Buffon).
As for creating better indicators, I am no
University ranking, to my knowledge, is not a research information service,
even though some research information services use ranking metrics in their
approach.
If many scientists advise younger colleagues to publish in the journals of
highest rank, it is because the ranking system first devis
The criticism of the university rankings in terms of measuring "what" is quite
correct. However, it is also somewhat irrelevant. What is important in the end,
whether we like it or not (and I certainly do not like it any more than the
previous commentators) is that it creates a benchmark that st
This may be true, Les, but, to my mind, this is not very significant.
I have never bought the argument of limited resources which would force us all
into the same mold. This said, I am glad that something like SWORD is coming
along. While I serenely accept a certain degree of overlap and duplic
Thank you, Alma. These are interesting results
The results to question one confirm that the mandates work. We all agree on
this point. 35 answered out of 42
The results to question 2 are most interesting but only 19 apparently
responded. One may also raise the issue that the answers are biased
Excellent news, Les, which tends to show that soon this whole debate will
appear like a storm in teacup.
Like the Green and Gold road, IR and CR are not in competition. Moreover, as
they exist and will not subside, it is better to build on this basis that to
try turning the clock back (and poss
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
I think Mike has it just right. Let us work from where we are, such as the NIH
mandate. It was hard enough to get. And if it is not perfect, well, too bad!
But it looks pretty good to me.
Let us indeed leverage the NIH mandate. It is this success that is making
Canadian funders move as well and
Thank you, Alma. Allow me to respond below.
But before I do this, let me make an initial remark. All this started because
of the APA stupid (and temporary) decision and Stevan Harnad's reaction to it,
choosing to hit at NIH rather than at APA. I think his reaction troubled many
of us greatly. B
Message d'origine
De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: ven. 25/07/2008 09:03
Ã: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Objet : Convergent IR Deposit Mandates vs.
I am afraid the ad hominem accusation was directed the wrong way.
Let me review points 1-6:
1. Librarians in institutions that have IRs can recover those articles from NIH
automatically. A simple script will do.
2. ?
3. ? Personally, i would hope for funders to develop their own
depos
I ask for an explanation about what appears like a logical gap to me. All I get
in response is a series of references which reiterate the same thesis over and
over.
This must be Stevan Harnad's notion of what a civil debate must be like... It
goes roughly like this:
I (SH) am right.
If they d
One more exercise of turning in circles. The main point is that the NIH mandate
does not affect at all the way in which institutional repositories develop. If
it did, I would like to have very precise and concrete examples...
Let's go once more:
How does 3 follow from 2 in the first response? T
Leaving aside the bandwidth-wasting remarks about the inability of people to
read what Harnad writes, I still find Harnad's answer unsatisfactory. The
reason is that he and I agree that a repository without a mandate is
ineffective. Consequently, arguing that one is not against
"institution-ext
I believe Arthur is right on his first point. This said, the issue of
university autonomy varies enormously from one country to another and that must
also be taken into account. In some countries, universities simply do not have
the needed margin of maneuver to create institutional repositories
How can Harnad simultaneously state that there is no drive on his part against
"institution-external OA repositories" and then proceed to state point 4?
Jean-Claude Guédon
Message d'origine
De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Stevan Harnad
List-Post: goal@ep
Mr Szczepanski appears a little traumatized by by the collectivist practices of
a recent past and I cannot blame him for that. However, traumatized or not, he
should not build comparisons that simply do not work.
Having rights by law and choosing to relinquish some of them (through Creative
Com
What is interesting is that the same situation applies in many developed
countries as well. Sally's argument applies equally well to Canada, France,
Italy, Spain, Germany, Finland, most Latin American countries, etc. etc. In
fact, only three countries in the world seem to have no or very few sub
I quite agree with Mike Smith and his concerns about the Third World.
Open Access is the only way for Third World countries to see their journals
recognized and integrated in the international bibliographies. As a result,
Third World scientists will be able to publish on topics of interest to th
28 matches
Mail list logo
