I have redirected this from the CERN thread, with which it has nothing
to do.
And as mere repetition is vastly outweighing substance in this exchange,
I will be brief, and will leave the last word to Rick (unless something
new and substantive is added):
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Rick Anderson wrote:
> the real definition of OA is both various and controversial.
Forget about formal semiology. This is about access to research.
Researchers need it, even when their institutions can't afford
to subscribe. Self-archiving provides the free online access they
need. (Call it whatever you like.)
> "Access loss" arises not only from tolls, but also from lazy or sloppy
> self-archivers, from imperfectly indexed archives, and from any number
> of other factors.
But with only 15% self-archiving, you can be sure of where 85% of
access/impact loss arises from.
> if current self-archiving reality is any guide to the future, then the
> actual effect of universal self-archiving will be immediate, spotty and
> relatively difficult access (at least for the intended beneficiaries
> of OA, i.e., those who don't subscribe to the journals that provide
> formally-published versions).
If current self-archiving reality is any guide to the future,
self-archiving will not be much higher than 15% for years to come.
Hence we need employer/funder self-archiving mandates to reach 100%.
For a preview of reality with 100% self-archiving, see OAIster or
citebase:
http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/
http://www.citebase.org/
> I've described my own experience in this forum before. In the interest
> of conserving bandwidth, here's a link to that previous posting:
>
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4681.html
For a preview of reality with 100% self-archiving, see OAIster or
citebase:
Stevan Harnad
Received on Fri Dec 16 2005 - 16:18:22 GMT