[Open-access] Collections of Libre material

[Mike Taylor]

OK, sorry to have misunderstood you.  Access to all materials for all
people, and let each use what he or she finds most useful.  Good.

-- Mike.


On 13 February 2012 16:44, Tom Olijhoek <tom.olijhoek at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>