On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Klaus Graf <klausgraf_at_googlemail.com> wrote:
> I have replied there:
>
> http://archiv.twoday.net/search?q=button
>
> (i) The button is making scholars to beggars.
>
> (ii) There is evidence that asking directly the author is more
> successful. Having used the button without success a following direct
> mail would diminish the chances.
>
> (iii) My own experiences with the button (for test purposes) have
> shown that the success rate is low.
>
> (iv) DON'T LET THE AUTHOR DECIDE IF DARK OR OPEN. If there are no
> cogent copyright reasons DON'T ACCEPT dark deposits.
>
> (v) DON'T ACCEPT DARK DEPOSITS WITHOUT FIXED EMBARGO TERM.
Ad Dr. Graf (who is certainly not discussing the point Colin Smith
raised, but rather riding his habitual hobby-horse (that the button is
“evil”!):
(i) Requesting an eprint by button makes scholars beggars?
(ii) Requesting an eprint by email is less beggarly?
(iii) Stay tuned for a forthcoming paper with objective data on the
success rate of the button.
(iv) The beggar (without a mandate) is the repository, and beggars
can’t be choosers.
(v) Dr. Graf seems to be systematically incapable of understanding
that the purpose of the button is to maximize deposits and deposit
mandates, not to minimize them.
Stevan Harnad
> Klaus Graf
>
> 2010/2/3 C.J.Smith <c.j.smith_at_open.ac.uk>:
>> Members of this list may be interested in a blog post I’ve just written on
>> the “request copy” button used by some repositories (including my own). I’d
>> welcome your responses not only on this list, but also as comments to the
>> blog post itself.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/ORO/?p=92
>
Received on Wed Feb 03 2010 - 22:12:00 GMT