[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Thank you, Peter, for this piece of solid common sense. It completes
Bernard Rentier's recent, sensible comment on the topic.
Funding agencies have their wishes, and universities other wishes,
and researchers still other wishes. The point is to come to an
optimal solution taking into account the realities of the working
field. Hammering away at just one solution, however good the
reasoning behind the hammering may be, simply denies the details of
reality and their unavoidable nature.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le vendredi 13 février 2009 à 10:46 +0000, Peter Millington a écrit :
Following the LOCKSS principle, I personally support both
institutional and central repositories. Depositing in
both may also help to disseminate research more widely.
Being Devil's advocate however, I can understand why
research funding agencies would want to stipulate
specific central repositories in their OA mandates. If
you are serious about policing compliance, it is much
simpler for a research funder to monitor a central
repository than a myriad of institutional repositories.
Of course for institutional mandates it is the other way
round.
Peter Millington
SHERPA Technical Development Officer
Greenfield Medical Library, University of Nottingham,
Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, England
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/ - Research funders' open
access policies
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ - Publishers' copyright
and archiving policies
This message has been checked for viruses but the
contents of an attachment may still contain software
viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are
advised to perform your own checks. Email communications
with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
Received on Fri Feb 13 2009 - 16:16:33 GMT