From: Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 23:40:49 -0500
They are probably intentionally/necessarily vague. So, there's
flexibility, or nothing substantive, depending on your take. The
vagueness means more parties can be pleased now, and hash out the
details later. Probably with more substance, things could fall apart
in arguing the details, so vague is the only possible output from a
committee?
-Wilhelmina Randtke
On Jun 5, 2012 6:58 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 23:44:58 -0500
>
> This press release emphasizes "scientific articles," but the policy
> itself is not limited to articles in the sciences but to all faculty
> articles of any kind.
>
> The policy refers to the "final version" of the article, but provides
> no definition of what that term means. So, is this a Green OA
> approach, or not?
>
> It would be helpful if such policies and their accompanying press
> releases were written with greater clarity.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> > From: "Taylor, Anneliese" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 00:32:57 +0000
> >
> > University of California, San Francisco Press Release
> > May 23, 2012
> >
> > UCSF IMPLEMENTS POLICY TO MAKE RESEARCH PAPERS FREELY ACCESSIBLE TO PUBLIC
> >
> > Health Sciences Campus Becomes Largest in Nation to Adopt Open-access Policy
[SNIP[
> > Full press release:
> > http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/05/12056/ucsf-implements-policy-make-research-papers-freely-accessible-public
> >
> > Full text of policy and supporting documents
> > http://senate.ucsf.edu/2011-2012/j-lib-openaccess.html
|
