Research: Put it up right or get taken down - Open Access
I don't think encouraging this is a good idea. I say that in spite of my disgust with the current system of signing away our rights to publishers, which I believe stifles scholarship and hinders innovation. I have a partial boycott policy with regards to Elsevier and am exercised enough to ...
no plus ones
- Even knowing all that I know about open access, I must admit I still feel this way:
"Several of my colleagues have objected to the preprint-posting solution. They tell me they simply don’t like looking at preprints, as preprints are sometimes laid out with ugly double-spaced text and relegate the all-important figures to the end of the document. The publisher-created PDF is a more aesthetic experience, with the figures embedded nicely into two-column pages of text."Dec 12, 2013
- Wrong question! Ask your colleagues who lack subscription access to the publisher's PDF whether they would prefer to "look at" the author's final, accepted version (postprint) or nothing at all...Dec 23, 2013
- Well, that is a good question, but different to the question of "are preprints as good/useful/aesthetic/pleasant as publisher-created PDFs". Of course, it would be easy to argue that your question is the more important one.Dec 23, 2013
- Beggars can't be choosers. But if institutions and funders manage to get their acts together and mandate the immediate provision of the poor man's version, all the rest of the dominoes will fall in short order. But now, over-reaching for the publisher PDF is one of the (many) things retarding progress.Dec 23, 2013
- With that I can agree fully. My comment was aimed more towards those who genuinely seem to feel there is no difference between a preprint and a publisher-PDF.Dec 23, 2013
Add a comment...