Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel_at_OPENLIB.ORG>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:18:10 +0700

  David Goodman writes

> 1. The growth of archiving will be greatly facilitated by the growth
> of the disciplinary archives, such as Cogprints

  Hmm. If the figures at
  are to be believed, there are now less then 3000 documents in
  that archive. I think Cogprints exists since 1996 or so. You will
  have to wait till Kingdom come at that speed before all of cognitive
  sciences (whatever that is) is in Cogprints.

> They're an obvious place to post, and an obvious place to look.

  Some central discipline-based archives work, others don't. I conclude
  that there is no obvious way to open access across disciplines. Each
  discipline has to go its own way, and some will never get there.

> 4. For this purpose, I proposed that disciplinary archives are
> better than institutional, and Stevan proposed exactly the opposite.

  This debate has no answer. Scholarly communication occurs across
  fuzzy groups called disciplines. The Internet and digital documents
  sets these groups free from brick and mortar library constraints.
  It would be very peculiar to see all of them adapt the same way
  of working since the new medium allows so much more freedom.


  Thomas Krichel
  visiting CO PAH, Novosibirsk
Received on Fri Jun 11 2004 - 10:18:10 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:29 GMT