Talk:Self-archiving: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::I concur with Johncmullen1960; in my field (marketing) self-archiving does not appear to be widely practiced, let alone stimulated by publishers. It makes me question if there is a (strong) selection bias in the publishers surveyed. [[Special:Contributions/69.209.235.244|69.209.235.244]] ([[User talk:69.209.235.244|talk]]) 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
::I concur with Johncmullen1960; in my field (marketing) self-archiving does not appear to be widely practiced, let alone stimulated by publishers. It makes me question if there is a (strong) selection bias in the publishers surveyed. [[Special:Contributions/69.209.235.244|69.209.235.244]] ([[User talk:69.209.235.244|talk]]) 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Also, the reference list of this article mainly appears to be a link-collection page for more or less two authors. Is that the best way to use a reference section? [[Special:Contributions/69.209.235.244|69.209.235.244]] ([[User talk:69.209.235.244|talk]]) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:14, 2 March 2008
Redundant with self archiving. I propose keeping self-archiving and removing self archiving.
I have moved here this section
Percentage of Journals
About 94% of peer-reviewed journals already endorse authors self-archiving preprint and/or postprint versions of their papers.
The source does not appear reliable. Certainly in my field (History research in France) the reaction mentioned is very rare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncmullen1960 (talk • contribs)
- One would think that eprints.org is a WP:RS for self archiving! However, it could be phrased better: "About 91% of publishers surveyed...."
- They have a list of publishers with policies & a means for submitting corrections--there's no reason to eliminate useful information because you have a different gut feeling. --Karnesky 13:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I concur with Johncmullen1960; in my field (marketing) self-archiving does not appear to be widely practiced, let alone stimulated by publishers. It makes me question if there is a (strong) selection bias in the publishers surveyed. 69.209.235.244 (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the reference list of this article mainly appears to be a link-collection page for more or less two authors. Is that the best way to use a reference section? 69.209.235.244 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)