[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Self-archiving or third-party archiving? (RE: Authors and OA)
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Self-archiving or third-party archiving? (RE: Authors and OA)
- From: "Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:36:46 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Authors need be asked only to do the research, publish it in a > peer-reviewed journal (as always) and, now, to also provide OA to it -- > either by publishing it in an OA journal (5%) or by self-archiving it > (95%). Leave the archiving to the universities and their network of > OAI-compliant OA archives. [MOD. OBSERVATION: Stevan seems all along to have used "self-archiving" in a broad sense, i.e., it's authors' posting to either own sites or eprint sites or repositories, i.e., sending to any e-source other than the journal in which the article is published. Consistent even if a little confusing at times!] Now I'm really confused, but it may be that I'm fundamentally misunderstanding something about the self-archiving concept. Do you mean that authors should leave it to the universities to do the self-archiving for them? It seems to me that it's either self-archiving (and therefore the author's responsibility) or it's third-party archiving (and therefore the responsibility of someone other than the author). To say that authors need only do the research and write it up and then leave the self-archiving for someone else to do for them strikes me as a contradiction in terms. If we're really talking about self-archiving, then "all they need to do is provide OA to it" is a statement that, I think, blithely covers up a world of cost and complexity. Providing OA is not simply a matter of flicking a switch or granting permission. It's a matter of publishing, and publishing in a particularly costly and robust manner (given that OA implies access that is both universal and permanent, neither of which characteristics has much precedent in the history of publishing). To pretend that this would not constitute a significant burden for authors is, I think, unrealistic. Unless, again, the burden is being placed on someone else, in which case I don't see why it's called self-archiving. Rick Anderson rickand@unr.edu
- Prev by Date: UK Inquiry: Conclusions and Recommendations released today
- Next by Date: RE: Electronic only articles & access for libraries
- Previous by thread: UK Inquiry: Conclusions and Recommendations released today
- Next by thread: Re: Self-archiving or third-party archiving? (RE: Authors and OA)
- Index(es):