[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Plan B for NIH Public Access Mandate: A Deposit Mandate
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: Plan B for NIH Public Access Mandate: A Deposit Mandate
- From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:17:09 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
I feel obliged to state the obvious: Stevan Harnad's comment in this thread about "that rare, lucky author" is an admission that OA has little impact. That author is rare and lucky because he or she has so many requests for copies of articles that are otherwise not available to other researchers. Most authors, of course, will not be troubled much with requests because the articles are indeed available to most researchers through institutional subscriptions. Whatever one feels about the legality of the NIH policy, the conclusion is inescapable (citing Harnad as above) that OA is a small idea. How it has come to dominate discourse concerning scholarly communications is a marvel, comparable in its way to the sudden interest of the popular media in hunting moose. Joe Esposito ----- Original Message ----- From: "atanu garai" <atanugarai.lists@gmail.com> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:54 PM Subject: Re: Plan B for NIH Public Access Mandate: A Deposit Mandate > Dear Stevan: > > 2008/9/17 Stevan Harnad <amsciforum@gmail.com> > >> Don't worry! That rare, lucky author will manage (and with a >> smile on his face)... >> >> And once Deposit Mandates are universal, this is the sort of >> thing that will help ensure the natural transition to universal >> OA. > > It is indeed difficult to design and recommend systems that > depend on individual decisions (such as actions and reactions by > authors and users) such as this. This needs to be corroborated by > empirical studies that authors are willing and give the users > content as per their demand. As a matter of general practice this > should be avoided because this kind of service provision can not > be guaranteed by institutions managing large scale content, > authors and users. It appears that the request button is designed > to bypass the existing copyright laws but it does not take into > account service delivery for the authors and users. > > Atanu Garai
- Prev by Date: The end of book publishing as we know it?
- Next by Date: Plan B for NIH Public Access Mandate: A Deposit Mandate
- Previous by thread: Re: Plan B for NIH Public Access Mandate: A Deposit Mandate
- Next by thread: Plan B for NIH Public Access Mandate: A Deposit Mandate
- Index(es):