<?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>Fri, 25 May 2012 04:09:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition by Weekly Digest for May 24th &#171; May Yan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-petition/comment-page-1/#comment-169049</link>
		<dc:creator>Weekly Digest for May 24th &#171; May Yan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 04:09:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1348#comment-169049</guid>
		<description>[...] Shared » Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition The Occasional Pamphlet. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Shared » Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition The Occasional Pamphlet. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition by Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property &#187; Open Access White House Petition Takes Off!</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-petition/comment-page-1/#comment-168987</link>
		<dc:creator>Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property &#187; Open Access White House Petition Takes Off!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 19:31:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1348#comment-168987</guid>
		<description>[...] Stuart M. Shieber – The Occasional Pamphlet on Scholarly Communication: Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-peti... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Stuart M. Shieber – The Occasional Pamphlet on Scholarly Communication: Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition: <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-peti" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-peti</a>&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition by Open Access White House Petition Takes Off!</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-petition/comment-page-1/#comment-168889</link>
		<dc:creator>Open Access White House Petition Takes Off!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 23:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1348#comment-168889</guid>
		<description>[...] Stuart M. Shieber – The Occasional Pamphlet on Scholarly Communication: Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-peti... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Stuart M. Shieber – The Occasional Pamphlet on Scholarly Communication: Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition: <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-peti" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-peti</a>&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Open letter on the Access2Research White House petition by Dear Mom, please sign the petition. #OAMonday &#171; Research Remix</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/05/21/open-letter-on-the-access2research-white-house-petition/comment-page-1/#comment-168843</link>
		<dc:creator>Dear Mom, please sign the petition. #OAMonday &#171; Research Remix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 20:47:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1348#comment-168843</guid>
		<description>[...] by Stuart Shieber&#8217;s open letter to his family and friends asking them to sign the access2research petition, here is the email I just sent to mine.  Please [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] by Stuart Shieber&#8217;s open letter to his family and friends asking them to sign the access2research petition, here is the email I just sent to mine.  Please [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The &#8220;Cost of Knowledge&#8221; boycott trajectory by The Access principle revisited: open access and the Knowledge &#8230; &#124; Public Domain</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/08/the-cost-of-knowledge-boycott-trajectory/comment-page-1/#comment-168483</link>
		<dc:creator>The Access principle revisited: open access and the Knowledge &#8230; &#124; Public Domain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 10:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1197#comment-168483</guid>
		<description>[...] signed a petition to boycott Elsevier, one of the major global players in scientific publishing, already has more than 10,000 signatories. The time has clearly come for a change , and because the internet cannot be controlled by [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] signed a petition to boycott Elsevier, one of the major global players in scientific publishing, already has more than 10,000 signatories. The time has clearly come for a change , and because the internet cannot be controlled by [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The new Harvard Library open metadata policy by What does one do with millions of MARC records? &#124; Gavia Libraria</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/04/27/the-new-harvard-library-open-metadata-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-168448</link>
		<dc:creator>What does one do with millions of MARC records? &#124; Gavia Libraria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 16:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1319#comment-168448</guid>
		<description>[...] Shieber, who is not a librarian, disclaims any sense of how the records will be used, though his curiosity on the point is gratifying. Permit the Loon to blue-sky a few potential [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Shieber, who is not a librarian, disclaims any sense of how the records will be used, though his curiosity on the point is gratifying. Permit the Loon to blue-sky a few potential [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on An efficient journal by opendna</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/comment-page-1/#comment-168351</link>
		<dc:creator>opendna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:51:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1203#comment-168351</guid>
		<description>Kent Anderson writes: &quot;My question about where the money is going centers around what appears to be private (aka, personal) benefit from the activities of a non-profit. I can’t tell if you’re listed as a trustee or as another key figure on your non-profit filings (because your status has been revoked), but if you are, you might be in trouble.&quot;

(facepalm) You should really do a state-level corporation search before accusing people of federal tax evasion. The Massachusetts Secretary of State&#039;s website lists all twelve of the JMLR&#039;s Annual Reports (plus Articles of Incorporation), and Stuart Shieber isn&#039;t listed as an officer in a single one.

This is research methods for first-year Arts students.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kent Anderson writes: &#8220;My question about where the money is going centers around what appears to be private (aka, personal) benefit from the activities of a non-profit. I can’t tell if you’re listed as a trustee or as another key figure on your non-profit filings (because your status has been revoked), but if you are, you might be in trouble.&#8221;</p>
<p>(facepalm) You should really do a state-level corporation search before accusing people of federal tax evasion. The Massachusetts Secretary of State&#8217;s website lists all twelve of the JMLR&#8217;s Annual Reports (plus Articles of Incorporation), and Stuart Shieber isn&#8217;t listed as an officer in a single one.</p>
<p>This is research methods for first-year Arts students.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on An efficient journal by Schenck</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/comment-page-1/#comment-168341</link>
		<dc:creator>Schenck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:13:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1203#comment-168341</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m really stunned at the output here, a journal at the top of it&#039;s class and respected in it&#039;s field, that&#039;s free to access, cheap to get an archival quality print, and involves nothing on it&#039;s &#039;staff&#039; part other than what&#039;s normal work for researchers and scientists. I&#039;m really impressed by this, it gives a person hope that this model could potentially spread.

The only problem seems to be that most scientists and researchers aren&#039;t really proficient in self-typsetting, ala LaTeX, or managing such a project. BUT, that sort of stuff seems to slowly be changing Besides comp.sci people, Math &amp; Physics researchers routinely submit to their journals using LaTeX, so maybe it will spread to biologists, chemists, social scientists, etc. Can&#039;t see it spreading too easily to Literature types (but who knows).

Also, I have no background in law or publication, but even I can pretty clearly see that Microtome is what&#039;s called a &quot;Publisher&quot;, and JMLR would be what&#039;s called a &#039;client&#039;. I /think/ they&#039;d use this thing called a &#039;contract&#039; to work out the details of having JMLR printed and distributed. 
It looks like I can purchase an archival quality print of an entire year&#039;s worth of JMLR articles for ~$240. OR I could go to a &#039;mainstream&#039; publisher and spend $50 for a pdf of a single article. Or, if I wanted to have an Artificial Intelligence article of my own published (and to be clear I don&#039;t work in that field), I can submit it for free to one of the top journals in that field with a high impact factor and expect it to be well read and well cited, or I can submit it to a &#039;mainstream&#039; publisher, pay a fee for things like color images and excess pages, and pay something like $2,000 to allow other people to access the pdf&#039;s for free.

It&#039;s pretty clear who&#039;s stealing from who in this system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m really stunned at the output here, a journal at the top of it&#8217;s class and respected in it&#8217;s field, that&#8217;s free to access, cheap to get an archival quality print, and involves nothing on it&#8217;s &#8216;staff&#8217; part other than what&#8217;s normal work for researchers and scientists. I&#8217;m really impressed by this, it gives a person hope that this model could potentially spread.</p>
<p>The only problem seems to be that most scientists and researchers aren&#8217;t really proficient in self-typsetting, ala LaTeX, or managing such a project. BUT, that sort of stuff seems to slowly be changing Besides comp.sci people, Math &amp; Physics researchers routinely submit to their journals using LaTeX, so maybe it will spread to biologists, chemists, social scientists, etc. Can&#8217;t see it spreading too easily to Literature types (but who knows).</p>
<p>Also, I have no background in law or publication, but even I can pretty clearly see that Microtome is what&#8217;s called a &#8220;Publisher&#8221;, and JMLR would be what&#8217;s called a &#8216;client&#8217;. I /think/ they&#8217;d use this thing called a &#8216;contract&#8217; to work out the details of having JMLR printed and distributed.<br />
It looks like I can purchase an archival quality print of an entire year&#8217;s worth of JMLR articles for ~$240. OR I could go to a &#8216;mainstream&#8217; publisher and spend $50 for a pdf of a single article. Or, if I wanted to have an Artificial Intelligence article of my own published (and to be clear I don&#8217;t work in that field), I can submit it for free to one of the top journals in that field with a high impact factor and expect it to be well read and well cited, or I can submit it to a &#8216;mainstream&#8217; publisher, pay a fee for things like color images and excess pages, and pay something like $2,000 to allow other people to access the pdf&#8217;s for free.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s pretty clear who&#8217;s stealing from who in this system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The &#8220;Cost of Knowledge&#8221; boycott trajectory by The Spamlist! &#187; Elsevier Boycott Nears 10,000 Signatures</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/08/the-cost-of-knowledge-boycott-trajectory/comment-page-1/#comment-168016</link>
		<dc:creator>The Spamlist! &#187; Elsevier Boycott Nears 10,000 Signatures</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1197#comment-168016</guid>
		<description>[...] covered by Nature, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and most recently, The Guardian. But, as Harvard professor Stuart Shieber pointed out on his blog about the daily signups asking “Have scientists lost interest again?”, the signatures started [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] covered by Nature, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and most recently, The Guardian. But, as Harvard professor Stuart Shieber pointed out on his blog about the daily signups asking “Have scientists lost interest again?”, the signatures started [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The &#8220;Cost of Knowledge&#8221; boycott trajectory by Elsevier Boycott Nears 10,000 Signatures &#124; Singularity Hub</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/08/the-cost-of-knowledge-boycott-trajectory/comment-page-1/#comment-168006</link>
		<dc:creator>Elsevier Boycott Nears 10,000 Signatures &#124; Singularity Hub</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:55:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/?p=1197#comment-168006</guid>
		<description>[...] covered by Nature, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and most recently, The Guardian. But, as Harvard professor Stuart Shieber pointed out on his blog about the daily signups asking &#8220;Have scientists lost interest again?&#8221;, the signatures [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] covered by Nature, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and most recently, The Guardian. But, as Harvard professor Stuart Shieber pointed out on his blog about the daily signups asking &#8220;Have scientists lost interest again?&#8221;, the signatures [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

