As is clearly stated in all the descriptions of the feature, the
semi-automatic EMAIL EPRINT REQUEST button works *semi*-
automatically: the requester has to paste in his email address, then
the author receives an email and must then click on the URL to
approve the emailing. As all the descriptions and postings likewise
state clearly, this is *not* OA, nor is it immediate. It is almost-OA
and almost-immediate, and it is intended to tide all would-be users
over any embargo period. (It will also quickly bring embargoes to
their natural demise, if we can just stop fussing over trivial and
irrelevant details and get on with it... It is perhaps also
preferable to fact-check rather than thinking aloud.) S
On 14-Oct-06, at 10:46 AM, David Goodman wrote:
>If the button is set to operate automatically, it amounts to
>systematic disribution, which is never licensed by non-OA publishers.
>If it requires the choice of an author whether or not to reply,
>it's not open access.
>I believe the current software was designed to be legal,
>and uses the second alternative.
>
>David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
>previously:
>Bibliographer and Research Librarian
>Princeton University Library
>
>dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>Date: Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:51 pm
>Subject: Re: [SOAF] CIHR Proposes Optimal OA Self-Archiving Mandate
>To: SPARC Open Access Forum <SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, David Goodman wrote:
> >
> > > I would add one more desideratum, and I'm surprised you omitted
>it:
> > > full access on the day of publication is an absolute requirement,
> > > and has been so from the first... > 180 days delay will not
> > serve ...
> > > Go back and read Budapest...
> >
> > Please read the rationale for the Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access
> > ID/OA Mandate:
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
> >
> > "Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When?
> > Why? How?"
> > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
> >
> > The ID/OA mandate is much stronger than the flawed, loop-hole-ridden
> > Delayed Deposit Mandates that everyone has been (unreflectively, and
> > needlessly) proposing in order to accommodate publisher
>embargoes. It
> > moots any conceivable say that publishers might have in the
>timing of
> > the deposit itself.
> >
> > During any Closed Access embargo interval, authors will have the
>IR's
> > EMAIL EPRINT REQUEST button (available for DSpace IRs and for
> > EPrints IRs )
> > to fulfil any individual requests for a single email copy -- Fair
> > Use --
> > from all would-be users who see the deposit's openly accessible
> > metadata. http://www.eprints.org/news/features/ request_button.php
> > http://wiki.dspace.org/RequestCopy
> >
> > The idea is to get these mandates adopted, at long last, not to
> > keep delaying
> > them in the name of avoiding access delays! (Human nature and the
> > soon-palpable
> > rewards of access and impact will take care of the rest in short
> > order.)
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
Received on Sat Oct 14 2006 - 21:04:34 BST