Here is a message I sent to the US White House about the OATP Presidential
mandate.
First I would like to express my support and thanks for the announcement of
the policy on open access to scientific literature announced by Dr John
Holdren. This is an important expansion of themove towards ope
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:54 AM, Andrew A. Adams 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
> nominated
Am 24.02.13 09:59, schrieb Peter Murray-Rust:
> For the record I strongly advocate publishing science in
> domain-specific repositories. They already provide search interfaces
> which are heavily used unlike the 2000+ Institutional repositories
> where no scientist uses them as the first place
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Hans Pfeiffenberger <
hans.pfeiffenber...@awi.de> wrote:
>
> Am 24.02.13 09:59, schrieb Peter Murray-Rust:
> I second that. An indirect "proof" that this strategy actually serves
> research more thoroughly lies in the fact that publisher do /not/
> allow this in t
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 also
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Andrew A. Adams 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 on central
oper
attribution).
Regards
Robert
-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Andrew A. Adams
Sent: 24 February 2013 12:18
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Murray-Rust, Peter
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Dir
-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Kiley, Robert
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 1:24 PM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8
Suggestions
Andrew
Even if "deposit loca
,
> subject to proper attribution).
>
> Regards
> Robert
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
> Andrew A. Adams
> Sent: 24 February 2013 12:18
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Leslie Carr wrote:
> 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 d
On 24 Feb 2013, at 18:50, Peter Murray-Rust
wrote:
> Unless the rights are clear, PMC cannot trawl and ingest from random
> repositories.
My point is that this is not PMC harvesting from repositories. This is
repositories, on behalf of their users, pushing material to PMC. Or arXiv. Or
wha
>> 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
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Pet
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 access.
icant scope for specialized repositories.
Arthur Sale
-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew A. Adams
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013 11:24 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US President
Arthur Sale wrote:
> 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 metadat
...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Andrew A. Adams
Sent: 25 February 2013 08:18
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8
Suggestions
Arthur Sale wrote:
> Hey, let's be realistic. For most purposes text plus pictures is
Andrew Adams is so right, on every single points he made.
In a few moments (noon UK time) I will post an embargoed proposal from
HEFCE REF that proposes to require exactly what Andrew Adams is urging, for
very much the same reasons.
SH
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
>
>
n Behalf Of
Sally Morris
Sent: Monday, 25 February 2013 10:24 PM
To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Subject: [GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8
Suggestions
I seem to recall that, in various surveys, one of the features found most
use
19 matches
Mail list logo
