<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for The Occasional Pamphlet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet</link>
	<description>on scholarly communication</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 21:04:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Policies, publishers, and plagiarism prosecution by Schenck</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/05/15/policies-publishers-and-plagiarism-prosecution/comment-page-1/#comment-233316</link>
		<dc:creator>Schenck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 21:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1742#comment-233316</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re saying the publishers don&#039;t need these rights transferred to them in order to prosecute plagiarism. Maybe their wording on this is so totally wrong because they don&#039;t generally bother to seek out or prosecute plagiarism in the first place. If they did, they&#039;d probably have a more nuanced or reasonable wording on the subject.
Which just seems to confirm what we already know and you state, plagiarism has nothing to do with any of this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re saying the publishers don&#8217;t need these rights transferred to them in order to prosecute plagiarism. Maybe their wording on this is so totally wrong because they don&#8217;t generally bother to seek out or prosecute plagiarism in the first place. If they did, they&#8217;d probably have a more nuanced or reasonable wording on the subject.<br />
Which just seems to confirm what we already know and you state, plagiarism has nothing to do with any of this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open letter on the White House public access directive by James Porton</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/02/28/open-letter-on-the-white-house-public-access-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-233239</link>
		<dc:creator>James Porton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 23:16:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1691#comment-233239</guid>
		<description>This is great to hear!!  I remember telling a colleague the other day on how easy it was to find some NIH info for a project we were working on.  Good to hear that it&#039;s being adopted in other areas! 
Thanks to FASTR we can get our information faster now :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is great to hear!!  I remember telling a colleague the other day on how easy it was to find some NIH info for a project we were working on.  Good to hear that it&#8217;s being adopted in other areas!<br />
Thanks to FASTR we can get our information faster now :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open letter on the White House public access directive by Bhavya @ Flower Aura</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/02/28/open-letter-on-the-white-house-public-access-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-231757</link>
		<dc:creator>Bhavya @ Flower Aura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1691#comment-231757</guid>
		<description>This is good news indeed.

Here in India, a similar reform (Right to Information) was introduced after much public debate and intellectual intervention. 

Though Right to Information (RTI) does not talk about access to info regarding the spending and potential results of the spending in areas spanning science and technology, it saw close to 45 litigations in lower courts challenging the money spent by Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI) on 4 research studies initiated by them a decade ago. The government stand on it was that it might be against national interest if areas of spending were bought out in public domain but the courts saw merit in the litigation and ordered the government to come out clean.

It can only be a win-win, everywhere!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is good news indeed.</p>
<p>Here in India, a similar reform (Right to Information) was introduced after much public debate and intellectual intervention. </p>
<p>Though Right to Information (RTI) does not talk about access to info regarding the spending and potential results of the spending in areas spanning science and technology, it saw close to 45 litigations in lower courts challenging the money spent by Central Drug Research Institute (CDRI) on 4 research studies initiated by them a decade ago. The government stand on it was that it might be against national interest if areas of spending were bought out in public domain but the courts saw merit in the litigation and ordered the government to come out clean.</p>
<p>It can only be a win-win, everywhere!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why open access is better for scholarly societies by Moshe Vardi</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/01/29/why-open-access-is-better-for-scholarly-societies/comment-page-1/#comment-230472</link>
		<dc:creator>Moshe Vardi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:06:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1647#comment-230472</guid>
		<description>&quot; As a library, what are you going to do? Cancel scholarly society journals, just as the societies have been rightly complaining about.&quot;

Stuart, do you have data to back this claim? Are society journals really under stress more than commercial journals? From what I see with ACM the pressure comes from members, not from libraries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8221; As a library, what are you going to do? Cancel scholarly society journals, just as the societies have been rightly complaining about.&#8221;</p>
<p>Stuart, do you have data to back this claim? Are society journals really under stress more than commercial journals? From what I see with ACM the pressure comes from members, not from libraries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why open access is better for scholarly societies by Publishing and the POOC, or, why we need open access</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/01/29/why-open-access-is-better-for-scholarly-societies/comment-page-1/#comment-229770</link>
		<dc:creator>Publishing and the POOC, or, why we need open access</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1647#comment-229770</guid>
		<description>[...] Elsevier clears more profit than Walmart, Apple, and Disney. Data are from Mike Taylor, The obscene profits of commercial scholarly publishers, 2012. Chart by Stuart Shieber, 2013. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Elsevier clears more profit than Walmart, Apple, and Disney. Data are from Mike Taylor, The obscene profits of commercial scholarly publishers, 2012. Chart by Stuart Shieber, 2013. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Guest Post: On Lance Armstrong by Ron Paul</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/01/22/guest-post-on-lance-armstrong/comment-page-1/#comment-228954</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 10:02:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1631#comment-228954</guid>
		<description>Yes indeed it was such a huge letdown . Just before all his doping scandals had started erupting I had read his book and got so very inspired. Didn&#039;t know how to react.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes indeed it was such a huge letdown . Just before all his doping scandals had started erupting I had read his book and got so very inspired. Didn&#8217;t know how to react.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open letter on the White House public access directive by Around the Web: The market for new PhDs, Canadian science communication and more [Confessions of a Science Librarian] &#8592; Test Blog</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/02/28/open-letter-on-the-white-house-public-access-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-228730</link>
		<dc:creator>Around the Web: The market for new PhDs, Canadian science communication and more [Confessions of a Science Librarian] &#8592; Test Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 21:33:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1691#comment-228730</guid>
		<description>[...] Open letter on the White House public access directive [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Open letter on the White House public access directive [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open letter on the White House public access directive by Stevan Harnad</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/02/28/open-letter-on-the-white-house-public-access-directive/comment-page-1/#comment-228650</link>
		<dc:creator>Stevan Harnad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 03:38:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1691#comment-228650</guid>
		<description>THREE CHEERS AND EIGHT SUGGESTIONS

The new US OATP Presidential Directive requiring the largest US funding agencies to mandate OA within 12 months of publication is a wonderful step forward for the entire planet.

Here are some crucial implementational details that will maximize the mandates&#039; effectiveness.

(1) Specify that the deposit of each article must be in an institutional repository (so the universities and research institutions can monitor and ensure compliance as well as adopt mandates of their own).

(2) Specify that the deposit must be done immediately upon publication.

(3) Urge (but do not require) authors to make the immediate-deposit immediately-OA.

(4) Urge (but do not require) authors to reserve the right to make their papers immediately-OA (and other re-use rights) in their contracts with their publishers (as in the Harvard-style mandates).

(5) Shorten, or, better, do not mention allowable OA embargoes at all (so as not to encourage publishers to adopt them).

(6) Implement the repositories&#039; automated &quot;email eprint request&quot; Button (for embargoed [non-OA] deposits).

(7) Designate repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for performance review, research assessment, grant application, or grant renewal.

(8) Implement rich usage and citation metrics in the institutional repositories as incentive for compliance.

If this is all done universally, universal OA will soon be upon us -- and a global transition to affordable, sustainable Fair-Gold OA (instead of today&#039;s premature, double-paid Fool&#039;s-Gold), plus as much CC-BY as users need and authors wish to provide -- will not be far behind.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>THREE CHEERS AND EIGHT SUGGESTIONS</p>
<p>The new US OATP Presidential Directive requiring the largest US funding agencies to mandate OA within 12 months of publication is a wonderful step forward for the entire planet.</p>
<p>Here are some crucial implementational details that will maximize the mandates&#8217; effectiveness.</p>
<p>(1) Specify that the deposit of each article must be in an institutional repository (so the universities and research institutions can monitor and ensure compliance as well as adopt mandates of their own).</p>
<p>(2) Specify that the deposit must be done immediately upon publication.</p>
<p>(3) Urge (but do not require) authors to make the immediate-deposit immediately-OA.</p>
<p>(4) Urge (but do not require) authors to reserve the right to make their papers immediately-OA (and other re-use rights) in their contracts with their publishers (as in the Harvard-style mandates).</p>
<p>(5) Shorten, or, better, do not mention allowable OA embargoes at all (so as not to encourage publishers to adopt them).</p>
<p>(6) Implement the repositories&#8217; automated &#8220;email eprint request&#8221; Button (for embargoed [non-OA] deposits).</p>
<p>(7) Designate repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for performance review, research assessment, grant application, or grant renewal.</p>
<p>(8) Implement rich usage and citation metrics in the institutional repositories as incentive for compliance.</p>
<p>If this is all done universally, universal OA will soon be upon us &#8212; and a global transition to affordable, sustainable Fair-Gold OA (instead of today&#8217;s premature, double-paid Fool&#8217;s-Gold), plus as much CC-BY as users need and authors wish to provide &#8212; will not be far behind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why open access is better for scholarly societies by E-Lert # 509 / Cyberavis numéro 509 &#8211; E-lert @ Cyber-avis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/01/29/why-open-access-is-better-for-scholarly-societies/comment-page-1/#comment-227925</link>
		<dc:creator>E-Lert # 509 / Cyberavis numéro 509 &#8211; E-lert @ Cyber-avis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:38:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1647#comment-227925</guid>
		<description>[...] Why open access is better for scholarly societies [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Why open access is better for scholarly societies [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why open access is better for scholarly societies by Publishing and the POOC, or, why we need open access - JustPublics@365</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/01/29/why-open-access-is-better-for-scholarly-societies/comment-page-1/#comment-227418</link>
		<dc:creator>Publishing and the POOC, or, why we need open access - JustPublics@365</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:23:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1647#comment-227418</guid>
		<description>[...] Elsevier clears more profit than Walmart, Apple, and Disney. Data from Mike Taylor, The obscene profits of commercial scholarly publishers, 2012. Chart by Stuart Shieber, 2013. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Elsevier clears more profit than Walmart, Apple, and Disney. Data from Mike Taylor, The obscene profits of commercial scholarly publishers, 2012. Chart by Stuart Shieber, 2013. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
