Property Deals Hut

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 2 September 2005

SPARC | Comments to RCUK

Posted on 12:33 by Unknown
Open Access Working Group Responds to Call for Comments

Research Councils United Kingdom
Draft Position Statement on Research Outputs

This memorandum presents the views of several leading U.S. organizations concerned with the wide, affordable, and effective dissemination of scientific and scholarly research results: the American Association of Law Libraries, the American Library Association, the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, the Association of College and Research Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition).

We commend the Research Councils’ decision to establish a policy designed to improve access to the results of publicly funded research, and in particular, applaud the four principles upon which this policy based. We appreciate the RCUK’s decision to actively seek comments from a wide range of stakeholders. Although our organizations are not located in the United Kingdom, we offer our views because the scholarly publishing process and journals markets are highly international – involving authors, subscribers, readers, and research funding from many nations. Additionally, there is substantial cooperation among stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic in seeking solutions. The views expressed herein are closely aligned with those of SPARC Europe (www.sparceurope.org), a coalition of European libraries based at Oxford University in the U.K., which advocates changes in the scholarly publishing market to better serve the international research community ...
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Ann Okerson on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?
    One of a series exploring the current state of Open Access ( OA ), the Q&A below is with Ann Okerson , Senior Advisor on Electronic Stra...
  • Financial Times | Scientists reignite open access debate
    Scientists reignite open access debate By Clive Cookson, Science Editor A group of computer scientists yesterday reignited the debate over a...
  • Peer review: Combining old and new
    Nature recently published an interesting news item reporting that anyone submitting to a new section of the journal RNA Biology ...
  • Open Access: Profile of Eberhard Hilf
    Eberhard (Ebs) Hilf is a true veteran of the Open Access ( OA ) movement. A theoretical physicist based in Oldenburg , Hilf began his advo...
  • Open Access: Whom would you back?
    Open Access ( OA ) advocates will tell you that there are two roads to OA. Green OA consists of researchers continuing to publis...
  • Time to take the red pill
    Listening to presentations, and talking to delegates, at Internet Librarian International 2005 (ILI) last week, I was reminded of the film ...
  • Open Access: Rethinking Harvard
    Last week the architect of Harvard’s Open Access ( OA ) policy, Stuart Shieber stated : “the Harvard open-access policy could not be, shoul...
  • Comment on "Time to take the red pill"
    Richard, I was going to add a comment to your Open and Shut? blog article, " Time to take the red pill ", but I don't have a b...
  • EC: We'd accept software patent defeat - ZDNet UK News
    EC: We'd accept software patent defeat - ZDNet UK News
  • Open Access mandates: Judging success
    As Alma Swan has graphically demonstrated ( here and here ), mandates have begun to propagate nicely. It is worth noting that many of the...

Categories

  • ARC
  • Aspesi
  • Australia
  • Big Deal
  • BioOne
  • BMC
  • BOAI
  • Content Mining
  • COPE
  • CUP
  • Data Mining
  • eBooks
  • Elsevier
  • Free Software
  • FRPAA
  • Gold OA
  • Green OA
  • Harnad
  • India
  • InTech
  • ITHAKA
  • Jayakanth
  • John Wilbanks
  • Journal Prices
  • Library of Congress
  • Mandates
  • Michael Eisen
  • Michael Hart
  • MIT Press
  • Murray-Rust
  • Nature
  • NHMRC
  • NIH
  • OA Advantage
  • OASPA
  • OMICS
  • Open Access
  • Open Society Institute
  • Open Source
  • OSTP
  • Peer Review
  • Peter Suber
  • PLoS
  • PLoS ONE
  • Project Gutenberg
  • Repositories
  • Research
  • Research Works Act
  • Robert Kiley
  • Rockefeller University Press
  • RWA
  • Scholarly Publishing
  • Sciyo
  • Select Committee
  • Serials Crisis
  • SPARC
  • Springer
  • Text Mining
  • UC Press
  • UCL
  • Velterop
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Wiley
  • World Bank

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (31)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (9)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2012 (43)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  July (6)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (7)
    • ►  January (13)
  • ►  2011 (22)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2010 (20)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2009 (22)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2008 (14)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2007 (9)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2006 (27)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (7)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ▼  2005 (31)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ▼  September (7)
      • Starting a new bushfire
      • Education Guardian | Open access failings 'cost UK...
      • £1.5 billion lost annually in potential return on ...
      • UK library community responds to the RCUK Proposal
      • WSIS working group comment on RCUK policy
      • SPARC | Comments to RCUK
      • BMJ | Results of publicly funded research should b...
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (6)
  • ►  2004 (2)
    • ►  August (2)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile