On 9/11/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
<snipped> It isn't an either-or situation. If there's a choice between linking to a version on JSTOR and a version that's freely available, then definitely, go with the free version (although, of course, "free" versions might be things that people have uploaded without permission, which means they are likely to disappear). But if the choice is between JSTOR and no link, then it's better to provide a link available to SOME people, rather than no link at all. Of course, it may be preferable to link to a freely available abstract, rather than JSTOR (which, sadly, does not allow ANY access to people who are not subscribed).
It isn't true, by the way, to say that JSTOR access is available only from libraries. In my experience, it's available to any computer with a campus IP, and often to people associated with the universities who are not physically on campus (for example, if I log in to the library's web page I can access JSTOR articles from wherever I am).
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a change in {{Cite journal}} to allow a separate link to the abstract (if, for example, a free abstract is available is one place, and a non-free full-text version is available elsewhere.
Incidentally... that campus access is almost certainly a service brought to you and paid for by your library. Academic libraries sign licensing agreements with major publishers such as JSTOR asking for IP access, so that people with a campus IP or who can get to one via a proxy server or VPN or similar can access library content. It's almost always a headache to negotiate those contracts, so if you like the service you should tell your librarians so :)
Re: abstracts; a link would be great; though if you have campus access it is sometimes difficult to tell what is visible because a library's paid for it and what is truly free.
-- phoebe