[GOAL] Re: US Presidential Open Access Directive: 3 Cheers and 8 Suggestions

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Hans Pfeiffenberger <
hans.pfeiffenberger at awi.de> wrote:

>
> Am 24.02.13 09:59, schrieb Peter Murray-Rust:
> I second that. An indirect "proof" that this strategy actually serves
> research more thoroughly lies in the fact that publisher do /not/
> allow this in their standard green exceptions (by allowing deposit
> only to personal webpages and institutional repositories).
>
> I slightly disagree in that "country-wide" repositories would still
> force scientist to search in dozens of them (if not hundreds, to be
> exhaustive).
>
> There are cases where this makes practical sense. If I want a thesis I
don't look in the UK because it is so badly managed. I don't look in US
because many theses have all been donated to commercial walled gardens
where you have to rent them back. I go to NL where all the theses are
collected in Darenet.

There are also many subjects where there is no natural repository - where
do you put papers in (say) materials science? (This is a subject which
generates billions of published worth and throws it all away). The domain
cannot yet organize itself (we are trying to change that). So it's much
better to put it in (say) British Library than DSpace at cam or
DSpace at anywhereElse.  The BL understands collaboration with other National
Libraries. Universities usually don't understand "collaboration". And the
BL understands non-textual material (e.g it is the natural home of
DryadUK). value.

And this approach overcomes the obsessive concentration on "the final PDF"
as the sole artifact of


-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130224/b88da67e/attachment.html