On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:
> There is no contradiction between institutional and departmental
> archives
I agree completely. In fact, departmental archives *are* institutional
archives (as opposed to centralised, disciplinary ones, like the Physics
ArXiv or CogPrints).
> having
Perhaps there is a possibility, although
admittedly a small one, that the academics in other fields may not be
quite as dumb as some of us may have been saying.
They do, after all, have some experience in writing
and publishing scientific work.
. On Wed, 19 Mar 2003,
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On W
Stevan Harnad writes
> The Big Koan is: "Why aren't all researchers self-archiving yet, given
> its benefits and feasibility?"
> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html
One answer that I have is that the benefits of doing
self archiving have to be demostrated to the invidual
lev
Stevan Harnad writes
> The Repec model is one in which many distributed institutions,
> each having archives of multiple economics papers of
> their own, have their metadata gathered together and
> enriched to provide OAI-like interoperability: http://repec.org/
The interoperability is more
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:
> >tc> You constantly belittle technical problems, and then you wonder
> >tc> why the archives are staying empty or do not exist. Answer: because
> >tc> these "technical problems" have not been solved. By belittling
> >tc> them, you put yourself in the wa
Leslie Carr writes
>sh> It is such a small issue that it does not belong in a general
>sh> discussion of open access and self-archiving for researchers.
>
>tc> You constantly belittle techncial problems, and then you wonder
>tc> why the archives are staying empty or do not exist. Answer:
[Subject header changed from the Cliff Lynch paper to RePEc to reflect
the change in focus.]
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:
> For self-archiving, abstract understanding [by academics]
> is not sufficient. You need action by academics.
> If you want to have an intermediated
>