[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Green gold?
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Green gold?
- From: Peter Banks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:13:40 EDT
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
I think that Google Scholar does quite a good job of locating all of the versions of articles. >From talking with researchers, I do not find the perception that inability to find self-archived manuscripts is a significant factor inhibitor of self-archiving. Instead, the researchers I've spoken generally have two objections: 1) they do not want their unedited work posted and 2) they think self-archiving is a waste of time. Peter Banks On 7/26/06 5:53 PM, "Richard Feinman" <RFeinman@downstate.edu> wrote: > 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 )