[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Green gold?
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: Green gold?
- From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:40:29 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
More precisely, As for PubMed, PubMed entries do carry a link to the OA version on PMC, and it is just as well hidden as the link to the publisher's version. Upon getting the list, the far right column has a link called "Links', which shows both PMC and the publishers' site(s). What PubMed does not seem to have, and certainly should have, is a link to GreenOA author copies that may be elsewhere on the web; I am informed that there is yet a reliable and comprehensive single search engine to find them all. As for citations, they certainly should include links to any OA versions that the author knows about. Authors may not know, for they may have read the Publisher's version; it would be highly desirable if the authors, especially if publishing OA themself, were to check all of their references for OA, just a they would check any OA urls for possible Publisher's versions. First, as for PubMed, PubMed entries do carry a link to the OA version on PMC, and it is just as well hidden as the link to the publisher's version. Upon getting the list, the far right column has a link called "Links', which shows both PMC and the publishers' site(s). What they do not seem to have, and certainly should have, is a link to GreenOA author copies that may be elsewhere on the web. I do not think there is yet a reliable and comprehensive single search engine to find them all.. Second, as for citations, yes they certainly should include links to any OA versions that the author knows about. The author may well not know, for me may have read the Publisher's version; it would be highly desirable if the author, especially if publishing OA himself, were to check all of his references for OA, just a we would check any OA urls for possible Publisher's versions. Publishers should be willing to include such links in their versions. I'd think a reader would first try the link to the better-copyedited and more readable publisher's version. If use studies and web log analysis were to show otherwise, they might indicate what it is that needs to change. Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University and formerly Princeton University Library dgoodman@liu.edu dgoodman@princeton.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 6:36 pm Subject: Green gold? To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu > The barrier to self-archiving is not inertia. It is the > perception that once archived, nobody will know where to find > the paper. On the other hand, if it were standard practice to > include the address of the self-archived paper in the PubMed > citation or if the URL were part of the format for references > in journal articles, this might be a good thing, no? Some > journals do include this but I have never attended to whether > and under what conditions journals do this. It seems, also, > that authors who had commitment to the overall problem of > access might choose to publish in journals that had the policy > of including this information in their reference format. That > way, people would have real access to the authors self-archived > form and could decide if they needed a valude-added version. > > Richard D. Feinman, Co-editor-in-chief > > Nutrition & Metabolism ( http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com > /home ) > > Brian Simboli <brs4@lehigh.edu> > Sent by: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu > 07/18/06 07:11 PM > > (cross-posted) > > A question that I posed to another listserv, but that might be > germane to soaf and liblicense. > > Is there is an OA movement, akin to the "green rights movement" > with respect to journals, to beseech publishers to allow authors > to post a copy of their monographs on the web? If not, why > hasn't this been an emphasis? > > The difference here would be that green rights are rights to > self-archive some version of already publisher-published ejournal > articles, whereas this would be a case of authors gaining rights > to publish electronically monographs that are sometimes available > from the publisher only in paper and sometimes also > electronically available. > > Brian Simboli > Science Librarian > Library & Technology Services > E.W. Fairchild Martindale > Lehigh University > Bethlehem, PA 18015-3170 > E-mail: brs4@lehigh.edu
- Prev by Date: EPrints: "World's Best Practice"
- Next by Date: Re: Errors in author's versions
- Previous by thread: Green gold?
- Next by thread: RE: Seeking contributors for a new Against the Grain column: "How=09 We Done It Bad"
- Index(es):