brent...@ulg.ac.be writes
The only way researchers can be convinced is through mandatory
pressure from the funders and/or the Academic authorities. And the
only way mandates can be imposed is through the research assessment
procedures. Everything else lingers or fails.
I beg to differ.
Rentier makes some good points here. May I add that if deposit in the IR
becomes THE way to report to the tenure and promotion committee and funding
agencies, this could actually save researchers a lot of time? Currently we do
need to report our publications, often to multiple venues with
Stevan, Bernard:
My main concern is not with mandates, but with the repositories themselves.
If memory serves me right, there was at least one unsuccessful attempt to
defund the NIH-run Pubmed repository. ArXiv also had an existential crisis
when run from a government lab.
The weakness of
Indeed Heather, in Belgium, we are now achieving total compatibility between
universities IRs as well as with the FRS-FNRS (the major Research Funder).
Authors have to file in their papers only once. However, if absolutely needed,
various formattings can be provided by the software.
I should
On Friday, November 15, 2013, 1:09:13 AM, you wrote:
The political approach may be necessary to get OA
enacted, but we need to implement OA in such a way that it
is immune from political influence. In my book, that seems
to be a perfect role for libraries.
This is a serious problem with
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Bjoern Brembs b.bre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2013, 1:09:13 AM, you wrote:
The political approach may be necessary to get OA
enacted, but we need to implement OA in such a way that it
is immune from political influence. In my book, that
Libraries are definitely places where awareness occurs. They are the sentinels.
However, they don't have enough power (generally) to impose Open Access as a
permanent reflex with researchers.
The only way researchers can be convinced is through mandatory pressure from
the funders and/or the
