Prior AmSci Topic Thread:
"The Special Case of Law Reviews" (started 2003)
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3155.html
Law Library Director and Assistant Professor of Law at the University
of New Mexico School of Law, Carol Parker, has published an article
Prior AmSci Topic Thread:
"The Special Case of Law Reviews" (2003-2004)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3192.html
Walled Gardens
by Dan Hunter
Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol. 62, 2005
http://papers.ssrn.com/s
Prior Amsci Topic Thread:
"The Special Case of Law Reviews" (Nov., 2003)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3192.html
Thanks to Andrew Odlyzko for the reference to this article by
Richard A. Posner, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
an
AmSci Subject Thread: "The Special Case of Law Reviews" (Nov., 2003)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3192.html
Forwarding from Dan Hunter of the Wharton School. If you remember back to
November 2003, Dan wrote an open letter to the California Law Review (CLR)
I have to agree 100% with Dan Hunter here, rather than with my
institutional colleague and friend, Steve Hitchcock: Open access
is *not* about individual authors somehow having to "fix" their
copyright agreements with their publishers. If that were the only
road, or the main road to open access, I
The law professor gets it. The (untenured) law professor just doesn't
have the bargaining position to negotiate a change in the contract when
the elite journals (that I rely on to get tenure) have explicitly said
that they won't negotiate contract terms and that if I don't like it I
can piss else
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Michael Carroll wrote:
>I've been following the open access discussion for a while now
>and may be writing a law review article on the subject in the
>not-too-distant future. I'll likely be reiterating some of the
>points you've been making in a number of fora
Hi Stevan,
I've been following the open access discussion for a while now and may be
writing a law review article on the subject in the not-too-distant future.
I'll likely be reiterating some of the points you've been making in a
number of fora. In the meantime, the answer to your question is dif
Dan Hunter may be "merely asking the California Law Review to become
'green', which is to formally support author self-archiving", but if
so perhaps it could be put more succinctly and more practically. As it
stands, there seem to be some obvious faults in the argument. First Dan
Hunter says
> In
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Terry Martin wrote:
>sh> It would be nice to see the actual figures on Law Reviews' self-archiving
>sh> policies, though. Does anyone actually have the data -- or a list of the
>email
>sh> addresses that I could send a query to?
>
> I'll save you the trouble. As incoming chai
I'll save you the trouble. As incoming chair of the committee on libraries
and technology of the American Association of Law Schools, this was an
issue I hoped to address in the coming year. I'll report back in a few months.
At 04:53 PM 11/20/2003, you wrote:
It would be nice to see the actual f
It would be nice to see the actual figures on Law Reviews' self-archiving
policies, though. Does anyone actually have the data -- or a list of the email
addresses that I could send a query to?
Stevan Harnad
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Terry Martin wrote:
> I don't think you are correct. I suspect most
I don't think you are correct. I suspect most law reviews are extremely
reluctant to permit self-archiving, as many want the articles that have
been submitted to pre-print services withdrawn before the reviews will
accept them.
(6) I suspect, though, that the California Law Review may be in a mi
Peter Suber has forwarded this very interesting letter from Professor Dan
Hunter, assistant professor of legal studies at the University of Pennsylvania's
Wharton School to the student-editor of the California Law Review
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/clr/
The letter is of interest for sever
14 matches
Mail list logo
