David Goodman writes
> 1. The growth of archiving will be greatly facilitated by the growth
> of the disciplinary archives, such as Cogprints
> http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/.
Hmm. If the figures at
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/view/year/
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.
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel mailto:krichel_at_openlib.org
visiting CO PAH, Novosibirsk
http://openlib.org/home/krichel
RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
Received on Fri Jun 11 2004 - 10:18:10 BST