Leslie Carr writes
>sh> It is such a small issue that it does not belong in a general
>sh> discussion of open access and self-archiving for researchers.
>
>tc> You constantly belittle techncial problems, and then you wonder
>tc> why the archives are staying empty or do not exist. Answer: because
>tc> these "technical problems" have not been solved. By belittling
>tc> them, you put yourself in the way of finding a solution.
>
> You know, I wonder if that's the case. I can see your point, and I
> won't argue that EPrints, or DSpace, or arxiv provides perfect
> technical solutions to every imaginable problem or the perfect user
> interface for every user.
I did not express myself well I wrote, I meant to say
that much of what Stevan belittles as "technical" is
in fact symptomatic of wider social issue that
impact on the academic self-documentation process.
> (I will refrain here from speaking of RePeC, since I don't know of
> any shortcomings that it may have :-)
One obvious example is the captialization of the name that
folks don't seem to get right :-)
> I think this area (academic motivation) is quite
> likely to hold the key to the missing content.
That is what I have been saying all along. You have
to give academics the motivation to participate. A
reliance on carrot and stick from central administration
is not likely to be sufficient.
> Certainly in local discussions several solutions have been
> suggested, but no agreement on a "globally optimal" solution has
> been reached :-)
Sure, because a global solution is not there, it depends
on the discipline. Some will get to self-archive slowly
some fast, some not at all. I can surly imagine a situation
where for legal scholarship you have to pay, but where
physics is free.
With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,
Thomas Krichel
http://openlib.org/home/krichel
RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
Received on Wed Mar 19 2003 - 15:23:38 GMT