Dear Stevan, dear all,
a short comment from Germany: Saarland University and State Library
holds the Special Subject Collection Psychology which is part of an
information system for the supra-regional literature supply in Germany.
Therefore we launched a disciplinary repository for psychological
May I remember to the Berlin declaration which is defining what an OA
contribution is:
Open access contributions must satisfy two conditions:
1. [...]
2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,
including a copy of the permission as stated above, in an appropriate
At 02:31 19/07/2008, Stevan Harnad wrote:
(One discerns the dead hand of digital preservationists
here, pushing their agenda, oblivious to the fact that
the content they seek to preserve is mostly not even OA
yet, and that the version that NIH has (rightly)
stipulated
With points 10-14 Stevan has rather deftly restated the OA IR as a
mandate, managed within the policy and business unit of the
institution with a view to monitoring implementation and compliance.
What we currently think of as an IR, some software managed by
computing services and/or the library,
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
I am a little puzzled by Stevan Harnad's accusation of
hypothetical
conditional. When he writes: It would certainly have put APA in
a
very bad light if, having given its authors the green light to
self-archive in their own IRs, APA then decided
** Apologies for Cross-Posting ** [see also PART
I and PART 0]
Peter Suber: At the moment, I see two conflicting APA
statements and no evidence that either statement
[2002 or 2008] took the other into account. So I'm still
waiting for a definitive clarification
Chris Armbruster, as in the past, and like many others, completely
conflates the problem of content and the problem of functionality:
(1) Virtually all OA repositories today -- institutional and central
-- are low on content: Only about 15% of annual refereed research is
being deposited today.
** Cross-Posted **
In Open Access News, Peter Suber commented on my posting -- In
Defense of the American Psychological Association's Green OA Policy
-- which defended the APA from criticism for levying a $2500 fee on
authors for compliance with the NIH mandate to deposit in
