Les,
First an apology for my previous part note, a case of tripping over my own
fingers :-(.
My basic interpretation of the 'Harnard model' is that Stevan wants every
researcher to locally (or remotely) make available an open copy of either
the submitted draft, final draft or published version of their research
publications. It operates in parallel with the current journal model and
uses the quality control services of existing journals.
However, by using this existing quality control service it is, in fact,
parasitic on the current model. What Stevan does not want to acknowledge
is that this parasitism will ultimately destroy the current journal model
(who is going subscribe to a journal when all its articles are available
for free?).
From my above analysis it is clear that having mandates (for self
archiving) will not not only increase the number of research articles
freely available (a good thing) but will also accelerate the end of the
'traditional' journal and force the evolution of a new form of academic
publishing to replace it (in my opinion also a good thing :-) ).
Regards,
John Smith,
The Templeman Library,
University of Kent, UK.
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Leslie Carr wrote:
> But mandates are not yet universally adopted, and there are arguments for and
> against. So in this debate, could you elaborate what you consider to be the
> features of the "Harnad model of scholarly communication" and how it differs
> from other models?
> --
> Les Carr
|