LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 26 Jan 2016 20:48:31 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
From: Katie Fortney <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 21:37:36 +0000

Hi Rick,

That blog post links to and excerpts a post that Justin Gonder and I
wrote in December. We wrote it because yes, some of our authors do
believe that social networking sites count as open access
repositories. When they hear that they can participate in UC’s OA
policies either by depositing in eScholarship (our repository) or by
just giving us a link to where their article is available in another
open access repository like arXiv or PMC, they ask, “It’s in
Academia.edu. That counts, right?”

No, they don’t have to choose between the two. But our post was an
attempt to explain a) why Academia.edu doesn’t count for compliance
with UC’s Open Access policies and b) the relative strengths,
functions, and drawbacks of each option in general. Because “What do
you think of ResearchGate?” is another one we get a lot.

Our post is here:

http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/12/a-social-networking-site-is-not-an-open-access-repository/


Cheers,

Katie

Katie Fortney, J.D., M.L.I.S.
Copyright Policy & Education Officer
California Digital Library
415 20th Street, 4th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612

ATOM RSS1 RSS2