On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Tom Franklin wrote:
> Franklin Consulting
>
> [Mandates are] not the solution. You have two researchers, one doing
> great
> research and publishing loads and not putting it in the IR, the other
> doing
> crap research and hardly publishing at all, but putting it in the IR which
> is going to get the promotion? For managers its only a marginal issue.
I have enormous difficulty following this logic:
"Seat-belt mandates are not the solution to getting people to buckle up.
You have to drivers, one careful and accident-free, and he buckles up,
and another careless, and accident-prone, and therefore..."
Therefore what? Therefore seat-belt mandates need not, should not be
adopted? Don't work?
> Like when choosing software open source is a nice to have, but the
> selection
> will actually be made on functionality, support, ability to work with
> other
> systems and what other people are doing. Open source just doesn't figure.
No one is talking about mandating consumer choice. A deposit mandate is
an internal record-keeping and performance evaluation matter.
> Self deposit just doesn't figure because it isn't core to the job.
Core for what job? And figures for whom, for what?
Is this about doing one's own keystrokes altogether? About going
back to secretaries typing our papers? Fine. The fingers need not be
one's own. Library staff or students doing the keystrokes to deposit
our articles by proxy still counts as self-archiving. The "self" just
refers to author-authorised deposits, as opposed to third-party bootleg
and piracy...
http://cogprints.org/1639/1/resolution.htm#9.1
Stevan Harnad
Received on Thu Jun 26 2008 - 13:36:13 BST