Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving

From: David Goodman <>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 17:23:08 +0100


You say, "it does not matter which archive has the article." surely the
the logical consequence is that it does not matter if it is the NIH/BMC
archive that has the article.

Why should we concern ourselves with previous publishers contracts:
the point of regulatory action is that they will all to have to compy
with the new standard. If we had had to negotiate library by library
and publisher by publisher, it would have been a problem. Nut we don't.

There are some other things in the agreement that you have previously
said you disliked, particularly the provision for embargo periods. Do
they no longer bother you?

Remembering the way you used to express it, anyone who claims to favor
OA and does not accept the UK and US mandates as regulatory starting
points to be adopted now and improved with experience, is not helping OA.

Our opponents are still alive, and kicking very fiercly. Shall we argue
with each other over what exact form is best, or shoud we work all
together to accept a reasonably good immediately acheivable arrangement?
Anyone who now says, Yes, but ... is not helping OA.


Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University

It is requested that those posting or citing this message do so in full.
Received on Mon Aug 30 2004 - 17:23:08 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:34 GMT