Open Access (book): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
* The text was finished in the spring of 2011, with only one or two small updates inserted after that. | * The text was finished in the spring of 2011, with only one or two small updates inserted after that. | ||
* The word count is 147k, higher than MIT wanted. In many places I was constrained by the word count. For example, in the preface, I wanted to thank many more colleagues, but in the end I only thanked those who helped with economic support for my OA work. | * The word count is 147k, higher than MIT wanted. In many places I was constrained by the word count. For example, in the preface, I wanted to thank many more colleagues, but in the end I only thanked those who helped with economic support for my OA work. | ||
== Updates == | |||
* Elsevier boycott | |||
== Second thoughts == | |||
* I call OA a "revolution" but say it's not a "radical" idea. What's not a radical step is to (1) solving severe problems harming you and your work by (2) taking advantage of existing technology. |
Revision as of 08:46, 22 April 2012
- This page is part of the Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP).
- These are Peter Suber's supplements and updates to his book, Open Access: Research Unbound, MIT Press, 2012.
The book
- ///here give links to MIT, Amazon, etc.; explain when/how it will become OA
- The text was finished in the spring of 2011, with only one or two small updates inserted after that.
- The word count is 147k, higher than MIT wanted. In many places I was constrained by the word count. For example, in the preface, I wanted to thank many more colleagues, but in the end I only thanked those who helped with economic support for my OA work.
Updates
- Elsevier boycott
Second thoughts
- I call OA a "revolution" but say it's not a "radical" idea. What's not a radical step is to (1) solving severe problems harming you and your work by (2) taking advantage of existing technology.