[Open-access] Collections of Libre material

Mon Feb 13 16:44:59 UTC 2012

I want to make clear that of course I do want Access for all to ALL CONTENT.
My mail was mainly suggesting that we have to consider the (education)of
the end user. Scientist doing research will need to read more details and
others could  possibly make good use of easy links to a WIKI in order to
follow the content of a particular paper.This is what Bibsoup should also
provide I think.
I am also the first to admit that people not from "the field" can
contribute in most unexpected ways to specific scientific projects
TOM

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I liked your blogs on @ccess very much. Well done Peter. And your article
>> on open access was class storytelling also, Mike.
>> Regarding the ongoing discussion on content. I do think it  a priority to
>> have as many links as possible to* full* content, by promoting archiving
>> of papers with @ccess, by linking to open access articles, by using the
>> Open Access Index as a means to influence the public opinion and
>> politicians.
>> Especially for scientists access to *complete* articles and data
>> is compulsory, but I guess that for "laymen" illustrative pictures and
>> abstracts would be sufficient. The database should be useful for all.
>>
>
> I agree with Mike, and Gilles Frydman makes this very clear - this is for
> *everyone*. If someone or their friends/family is suffering from a
> disease - especially a rare one - they have every incentive to become an
> expert.
>
> Specialists retire or change jobs or take a break and they get cutoff from
> acaemic publications. People outside academia often know MORE than those in
> it - naturalists, social workers, business people, politicians - whoever.
> We need these people.Medics may not be statisticians.
>
>
>> Regarding the lack of peer review. Once preview papers are deposited wirh
>> @ccess nothing can stop us from using new ways of review and impact
>> assessment with the help of the respective scientific communities. So I
>> would see a role for the MalariaWorld community in reviewing / ranking
>> papers and for our initiative to use new tools for impact assessment like
>> pageviews, social media buzz etc. I think that the scientific communities
>> will prove to be very able to review their members work and improve on it,
>> if our gateway gives them the tools and access to each other and to
>> (scientific) information. I am confident that @ccess can be a catalyst
>> towards networked scientific communities, a source of information for
>> non-scientific communities and a means for communication between scientists
>> and citizens. That is new compared with for instance ResearchGate.
>> When I see that ResearchGate .is very successful, so will we !
>>
>> We only have to generate enthusiasm, commitment and a selection of the
> most usefu/ most tractable problems to start from. Then everything else
> will follow. Yes, we shall get mocked/dismissed by some people to start
> with but we'll gather others. Wikipedia has done a huge service in showing
> the power of bottom up
>
>> TOM
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120213/a4e97c7c/attachment.html>