From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:57:31 +0000
My comment is this appears to be an attempt to try and catch the cat that
has left the bag some time ago. Caveats on sizes of academic groups would
seem to be an attempt to exclude ResearchGate and Academia.edu and the
wish to track everything seems like a way to get 'evidence' that the
publishing industry can then later try and turn into an argument of
further restrictions on sharing.
I¹m sorry, but this document does not demonstrate a genuine interest in
allowing the natural discourse of scholarly communication to go on.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science (CPAS)
On 25/02/2015 01:43, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>From: Fred Dylla <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:01:29 +0000
>The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical
>Publishers (STM) (http://www.stm-assoc.org/) has initiated a formal
>consultation on the sharing of published articles via scholarly
>collaboration networks (SCNs). STM is reaching out to stakeholders to
>invite and encourage wide participation in the consultation. We have
>sent more than a dozen invitations to various library consortia around
>the world, and believe that individual subscribers to LIBLICENSE might
>also be interested in participating as you share the commitment to
>meeting the needs of researchers..
>In effort to ensure that we capture as much feedback for consideration
>as possible, we invite LIBLICENSE subscribers to submit their ideas,
>impressions or support through official channels, hosted on the STM
>The consultation is open through April 10th.
>H. Frederick Dylla
>Chair, STM working group for article sharing on scholarly
>collaboration networks (SCNs)
>Executive Director & CEO, American Institute of Physics