LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  August 2017

LIBLICENSE-L August 2017

Subject:

Re: A controversial article

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 1 Aug 2017 20:38:57 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (55 lines)

From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 18:32:32 +0000

It could also that those 31% of articles have bad metadata, odd titles
which don't trigger the intended audience, are in languages most
people don't know how to read, etc.  Don't get me wrong, they very
well could be superfluous in the grand academia scheme - but there
could easily be other reasons why those articles haven't found their
readers.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eric Elmore                                                             |
Electronic Resources Coordinator                     |
The University of Texas at San Antonio            |
One UTSA Circle                                                     |
San Antonio, TX.  78249-0671                             |
(O)210-458-4916/(F)210-458-4577                    |
[log in to unmask]                                         |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 23:22:18 -0700

The article provides important data.

The major finding is how many scientific articles exist at the moment
- 80 million.

The second finding is that 31% of all articles are vain - no one is
interested in them.

I also reserve a question. The author claims that if the Sci-Hub
server is discovered, the problem is resolved. Is it that difficult to
discover it?

Ari Belenkiy

Vancouver BC
Canada

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:42 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:53:28 -0700
>
> An article in Science (appearing there makes it important) makes a striking prognosis about the future of journal publication.  No comment!
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/sci-hub-s-cache-pirated-papers-
> so-big-subscription-journals-are-doomed-data-analyst
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> ASU

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1