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:
Re: Nature article: 120+ "gibberish papers"
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:51:01 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines) 
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:22:27 +0000

Springer's statement was good, I agree. IEEE's, not so much:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/files/2014/02/IEEE-statements.pdf


---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
[log in to unmask]


On 2/27/14 10:15 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: "Pikas, Christina K." <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 09:36:24 -0500
>
>Springer issued a very reasonable statement, IMO:
>
>http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/pressreleases?SGWID=0-11002-6
>-1456249-0

ATOM RSS1 RSS2