Fast-Forward on the Green Road to Open Access[英语论文]

资料分类免费英语论文 责任编辑:王教授更新时间:2017-04-25
提示:本资料为网络收集免费论文,存在不完整性。建议下载本站其它完整的收费论文。使用可通过查重系统的论文,才是您毕业的保障。

网范文:“Fast-Forward on the Green Road to Open Access ”针对反对的作者,同行评议作者self-archive太少,一般的self-archiving只能生成不完整和不方便的访问。这篇传媒范文讲述的是对于期刊发表的一些问题,英语论文网站,寻求OA的则认为,正确的做法是,将它转换为OA期刊出版系统发布,所有文章的在线版本是免费的首先,self-archive论文,识别和标记这些论文的审查和评估,开发新的机制来评估和审查这些预印本。结果将是OA出版。实现开放存取学术期刊文献,我们建议两个互补的策略。

首先,学者需要将他们的专业期刊文章放在开放的电子档案中,当这些档案符合标准创建的开放档案,然后搜索引擎和其他工具可以把它当作单独的档案。用户不需要知道哪些档案存在或定位,而是为了找到并使用其内容。下面的范文进行详述。

Introduction
Jean-Claude Guedon (J-CG) argues against the efficacy of author self-archiving of peer-reviewed journal articles the "Green" road to OA on the grounds (1) that far too few authors self-archive, (2) that self-archiving can only generate incomplete and inconvenient access, and (3) that maximizing access and impact is the wrong reason for seeking OA (and only favors elite authors). J-CG suggests instead that the right reason for seeking OA is so as to reform the journal publishing system by converting it to OA ("Gold") publishing (in which the online version of all articles is free to all users). He proposes converting to Gold by "mixing and matching" Green and Gold as follows:

First, self-archive dissertations (not published, peer-reviewed journal articles). Second, identify and tag how those dissertations have been evaluated and reviewed. Third, self-archive unrefereed preprints (not published, peer-reviewed journal articles). Fourth, develop new mechanisms for evaluating and reviewing those unrefereed preprints, at multiple levels. The result will be OA Publishing (Gold).

To achieve open access to scholarly journal literature, we recommend two complementary strategies.

I.  Self-Archiving: First, scholars need the tools and assistance to deposit their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives, a practice commonly called, self-archiving. When these archives conform to standards created by the Open Archives Initiative, then search engines and other tools can treat the separate archives as one. Users then need not know which archives exist or where they are located in order to find and make use of their contents.

II. Open-access Journals: Second, scholars need the means to launch a new generation of journals committed to open access, and to help existing journals that elect to make the transition to open access. Because journal articles should be disseminated as widely as possible, these new journals will no longer invoke copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they publish. Instead they will use copyright and other tools to ensure permanent open access to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to access, these new journals will not charge subscription or access fees, and will turn to other methods for covering their expenses. There are many alternative sources of funds for this purpose, including the foundations and governments that fund research, the universities and laboratories that employ researchers, endowments set up by discipline or institution, friends of the cause of open access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts, funds freed up by the demise or cancellation of journals charging traditional subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves. There is no need to favor one of these solutions over the others for all disciplines or nations, and no need to stop looking for other, creative alternatives.

It is hard to see how an article that has already been published in a traditional journal can become an "original submission" to an "overlay journal" - harder still to see this as self-archiving's real "anchoring point." Perhaps self-archiving should just stick to the more mundane task of providing immediate OA to the remaining 80% of the current journal literature, rather than waiting for this hypothetical new multilevel, multivalent system to evolve?

The only "transition phase" that is worth talking about (and is tested, and visible, and reachable) is the transition from today's 20% OA to 100% OA via self-archiving. After that, nolo contendere - and hypotheses non fingo!

"Open Access should not be the tactical tool of a few, elite, established, scientists that want to enhance their careers and little else"
No one has suggested OA is, or should be the tactical tool of a few, elite, established, scientists. It is J-CG, however, who suggested (without saying how, or why) that impact enhancement through OA self-archiving would only benefit the elite, established scientists. The analysis by author/article seniority and quality-level is yet to be done, but there is no particular reason to expect that the OA-impact advantage will be only, or even mostly, at the top.

Conclusion
What is needed today is already quite clear: 100% OA by the fastest and surest means possible. It is also clear what that means is: self-archiving (Green), which now needs to be mandated by researchers' institutions and funders. There is also scope both for the growth of OA journals (Gold) and for experimentation with hypothetical new systems in parallel with the self-archiving of all peer-reviewed, published journal articles (Green) - but not in place of it. Let there be no mix-up about that!()

网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文作品权归所有;未经官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯作品权现象,英语论文题目,保留一切法学追诉权。()
更多范文欢迎访问我们主页 当然有需求可以和我们 联系交流。-X()


免费论文题目: