Re: Proposed update of BOAI definition of OA: Immediate and Permanent

From: J.F.B.Rowland <J.F.Rowland_at_LBORO.AC.UK>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:45:33 -0000

Absolutely right, Stevan. I apologise for confusing the issue with an
irrelevant anecdote.

Fytton Rowland.

> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Lee Giles wrote:
> > I strongly agree with these sentiments. If you don't include us, we will
> > go elsewhere and create our own open access policies and movement.
> > What a waste.
> Please, this is a tempest in a tea-pot!
> Distinguish (1) whatever it is that institutions and research-funders
elect to
> consider and reward as research publications (this has *nothing* to do
> Open Access or self-archiving!) from what they (2a) require, (2b)
> or (2c) allow to be self-archived in their institutional archive!
> Some institutions/fields only count and reward peer-reviewed journal
> as research outputs; others also count peer-reviewed conference
> others count books. This is completely orthogonal to the question of
> self-archiving policy except in one respect: Institutions will no doubt
want to
> *include* among the publications that they require to be self-archived the
> of publications that they count and reward!
Received on Fri Mar 18 2005 - 09:45:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:50 GMT