I appear to have been paraphrased incorrectly. I referred to "archiving by
publisher", which I meant to be distinct from the 'journal-based' model
attributed to me below. The main point of this distinction is to separate
the eprint archive costs from journal (i.e. peer review) costs, as the
respons
On Wed, 29 May 2002, Steve Hitchcock wrote:
> All three [open-access] models
> [(1) discipline-based, (2) university-based, and (3) journal-based]
> have the same objective, or at least they should do, which is to provide
> free and open access to the full texts of refereed papers. That objective
Roy,
Sorry for the delay in replying.
I stand corrected on the difficulty of setting up an eprints archive,
but I'm confident that the difficulty will continue to decrease as the
eprints software evolves.
You give two reasons for wanting a new term to replace or supplement
"self-arc
I am glad to see that the discussion has moved back into the merits of
different specific plans. If I had to guess, I would say that several of
the proposals
are likely to remain in simultaneous use indefinitely, rather than one
of
them being adopted universally. I do not think theoretical discussi
In focussing on the archiving of eprint papers, Roy Tennant is correct to
make the distinction between author "self-archiving" and archiving by a
third party, which could be by an institutional staff member, as he says.
There is a third model here, which is archiving by publisher, as in the
PubMed
I agree completely with UCOP's Roy Tennant that distributed
author/institution self-archiving rather than just central
discipline-based author self-archiving is the most promising
route to open-access for the refereed research literature.
However, I would still very strongly urge calling a spade
