On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:53:21 +0100, Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
wrote:
[...]
Consider the present logic of the RCUK proposal:
(1) You are *required* to self-archive your RCUK-funded research
-- except if your institution has no OA Institutional Repository
(presumably because
On 30 Jun 2005, at 22:43, Tim Gray, Libray Assistant, Homerton
College, Cambridge wrote:
Incidentally, what percentage of all UK peer-reviewed research is
funded by
RCUK? Would this percentage then be the percentage of *all* peer-
reviwed UK
research available via OA funded post 1st October
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Tim Gray, Libray Assistant, Homerton College, Cambridge
wrote:
Incidentally, what percentage of all UK peer-reviewed research is funded by
RCUK? Would this percentage then be the percentage of *all* peer-reviwed UK
research available via OA funded post 1st October 2005
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Michael Fraser -- who is in charge of creating Oxford University's Institutional
Repository -- is *so* right!
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/collaboration/?rq=specialevents/20050610
At 16:59 28/06/2005, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Long-term preservation
RCUK draws a distinction between two
overlapping purposes: (a) making published material quickly and
easily available, free of charge to users at the point of use, and
(b) long-term preservation and curation.
... Please do
3 Excerpts from Peter Suber's Open Access News
-- Forwarded message --
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:48:11 -0400
From: Peter Suber
To: SPARC Open Access Forum sparc-oafo...@arl.org
Aisha Labi, British Research Group Calls for
These are some comments on the summary of the RCUK Proposed Policy.
RCUK Announces Proposed Position on Access to Research Outputs
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/press/20050628openaccess.asp
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp
The proposal is *excellent* overall, correcting all
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Stevan Harnad wrote:
There will be no obligation to set up a repository where none exists
at present.
I would strongly urge omitting this. Otherwise it will construed
as a general opt-out clause for the RCUK requirement, and will
implicitly encourage institutions to opt
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Michael Fraser wrote:
RCUK PROPOSAL: There will be no obligation to set up a repository where
none exists at present.
I would suggest that rather than stating 'no obligation,' the RCs [instead]
encourage grant proposals to include a proportion of the cost of running
-- Forwarded message --
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:40:06 -0400
From: Peter Suber pet...@earlham.edu
To: SPARC Open Access Forum sparc-oafo...@arl.org
See Stephen Pincock's story on the RCUK open-access policy in today's issue
10 matches
Mail list logo
