Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 16:43:53 -0500

I, for one, am glad than Stevan has finally said that

>... The preprint-plus-corrigenda strategy is a
> "virtual strategy" (more like a thought-experiment or a reductio ad
> absudrdum). I have no idea how many people are actually doing it (you'd
> have to search OAIster to see), but it's main function is to reassure
> researchers conceptually that self-archiving is still possible even if
> they elect to ask their publishers, and even if their publishers say no.
> The fact, however, is that for 12 years physicists (and mathematicians,
> and computer scientists) have already been self-archiving without
> bothering to ask! The P+C strategy is just intended for those who have
> not yet begun self-archiving because they believed there was something
> about copyright to prevent them from doing it.
> And I meant the "name-and-shame" strategy in the same sense: Not to
> actually do it and shame publishers, but in order to give them a graphic
> picture of what it would look like if publishers forced authors to use
> P+C.
> Cheers, Stevan

To me, this is the plain meaning of what he advocates. I am much more
confident about
supporting it in this light, than as a permanent strategy.

Dr. David Goodman
Princeton University
Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU
Received on Sun Jan 12 2003 - 21:43:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:50 GMT