Message-ID: |
|
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:52:05 -0400 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
From: Laura Quilter <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:17:21 -0400
This is the disconnect I see everywhere: mss based on dissertations,
conflated routinely with OA to dissertations (or other materials, such
as journal articles).
AHA's statement targeted only OA for dissertations, and discussed only
the bad consequences -- not the potential good consequences laid out
elsewhere in some responses. Evidence cited in the FAQ is purely
anecdotal, and, I would say, not exactly strongly supportive even as
anecdotal support.
I applaud the AHA for its motives, but frankly I'm disappointed in its
methodology.
On Jul 29, 2013 6:09 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 18:26:49 -0400
>
> I have not seen a systematic study, but I personally have been told by
> U. press editors, directors, and editorial board members that they
> frowned on publishing books based on dissertations.
>
> The AHA response to this may be ham-fisted, but it's not unconnected to reality.
>
> Joe Esposito
|
|
|