<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:velterop@gmail.com" target="_blank">velterop@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains 3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked "restricted access" and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out of scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA repository, Peter Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that compliance is essentially zero, in terms of Open Access. </div>
</blockquote><div><br>Yes - This is correct. Many organizations archive METADATA not FULL-TEXT. Metadata is trivial to archive - my software has already archived more metadata without anyone's permission than all the repos combined. As Jan says, you only get the abstract and that's almost useless.<br>
<br>I suspect that many of the figures for Green relate to metadata , not full text. They are indexes of the organizations work, not the work itself. Yes, the institution has archived the PDF , but no, it's not open.<br>
<br>I am talking about putting the full-text up visible or line with a single link for the repo or from Google - not a 10-minute form to beg the author for permission. <br><br>And that's one reason why Green often falls short of being useful - leaving aside the rights of the reader<br>
<br>P.<br><br><br><br><br></div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069<br>