Talk:Self-archiving
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Redundant with self archiving. I propose keeping self-archiving and removing self archiving.
I have moved here this section
[edit] 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)
