On 14 Mar 2005, at 04:16, David Goodman wrote:
What remains is the literally academic distinction you mention:
it cannot be listed on one's academic CV as "published."
This is now as archaic as the structure of the academic world itself.
But it is that world (and no other) in which we are wor
As someone who monitors this discussion and only rarely comments, one small
observation in response to David Goodman.
Although I appreciate his sentiment, the realia of current academic life cannot
be ignored. E.g., for tenure and promotion, for granting bodies, etc., there
remains the need to ide
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Sat 3/12/2005 9:12 PM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Bethesda statement on open access publishing
(1) For OA purposes, a *publication* is a peer-reviewed journal
article that one has published (we ignore here other public
een roads, but simply ask we
> go a step further. And I do not believe advocating this blurs the
> vision, deters efforts or slows down the movement toward OA, quite the
> contrary. Unlike Stevan harnad, I do not see these two approaches as
> competing with each other; neither do I see
them as part of some kind of
zero-sum game where doing work in one way can only deter, weaken or
defer progress toward OA.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le samedi 12 mars 2005 à 17:00 +, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> Amsci Topic Thread began:
> "Bethesda statement on open acce
Amsci Topic Thread began:
"Bethesda statement on open access publishing" (Jun 2003)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2877.html
I think it is time to revisit the definition of Open Access:
A meeting on April 11 2003 in Bethesda MD generated the "Bethes
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Jeff Weber wrote:
> Open Access Publishing removes the protection of copyright law from
> publishing efforts.
This is incorrect. Open Access Publishing allows the author to retain
the copyright, and with it the full protection that copyright is accorded
by law. For the open-ac
r the
immediate adoption of your proposal--we need something now.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Peter Suber wrote:
>
> > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html ]
> > Bethesda statement on open access publishing
>
> The Bethesda
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Peter Suber wrote:
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html ]
> Bethesda statement on open access publishing
The Bethesda statement is very useful and timely, but
it would be far more valuable
(1) if the support for open access were generalized beyo
[Forwarded from FOS Blog and FOS Forum
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html ]
Bethesda statement on open access publishing
Peter Suber Jun 22, 2003 17:44 PDT
[I'm forwarding an important statement on open access publishing from an
April meeting of foundations, scientists, ed
10 matches
Mail list logo
