Alex,
You hit the nail on the head (this time ;):
"we could somehow enhance research exchange, by creating a "college" for
our RX coordinators to join, to allow them to connect with scholars and ask for versions of papers"
I envisioned nothing more than a handful of Academia.edu accounts to better enable Resource Exchange contributors to help others improve articles with the best reliable sources.
To be used sparingly, when no better options available on open Web, proprietary databases to which another Ref Desk regular might have access, individual or institutional repositories, etc.
Convenience and courtesy enhanced: would speed RX turnaround and reduce all editors' perceived need to email busy academic authors, wasting their time (and possibly alienating them - "why didn't you look on my page at Academia.edu?")
Citing pre-prints remains problematical. Still, *pre-prints can be highly useful for what Wikipedia is highly useful for: summarizing original research. * Attribution &/or linkage are orthogonal issues, to be discussed. Current practice is WL partner page provides partner attribution recommendations; does not, can not, enforce individual editors' compliance.
Appreciate your enthusiasm, others' caution - we need both.
Best,
Paul.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Alex Stinson sadads@gmail.com wrote:
Thats great Paul! I would love to know what the "value add" would be of access for our editors: even if it is just a matter of understanding the value of search tool (or if we could somehow enhance research exchange, by creating a "college" for our RX coordinators to join, to allow them to connect with scholars and ask for versions of papers.
As you are probably aware, but I wanted to share with our listserv, our pitch framework is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Processes/Pitc... . This pitch is designed for conventional publishers, and we are still looking for good models for Open Access publishers and Institutional Repositories (for example, Jake and I met with PLOS the other week: and we didn't have a clear sense of what we could use there support on, because everything is open already).
Also as a bit of context, Academia.edu has about 8,000 links on Wikipedia already: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&... . So there is some latent demand somewhere for this. If anyone wants to investigate who/how these are being used, that would be great, but as far as I can tell, we don't have the tools for quick assignment of links to users, or finding patterns (if you know someone who can build a tool like that, there is a lot of potential use cases: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T102064).
Cheers,
Alex Stinson
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:39 AM, James McArdle < jmcardle@vic.chariot.net.au> wrote:
Dear WPL colleagues,
Thank you for responding to my query about making approaches to Academia.edu. I really appreciate having sensible advice. Your feedback indicates caution, and raises the possibility that there may be little to be gained from an arrangement with them; I will go ahead and make queries, especially about the legal side and the user agreement as would relate to WPL access, but shall make no commitments. I'll bring their response back to the list for consideration.
Regards, James
James McArdle User:Jamesmcardle
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:48:41 -0700 From: ahmed yousif ashashyou@yahoo.com To: wikipedia-library@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia Library] Wikipedia-Library Digest, Vol 10, Issue 5 Message-ID: 1442342921.56119.BPMail_high_carrier@web121704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Just a hint.
Being a payable article does not mean that it is not open access.
My own experience is that some journals when submitting your article will put a"time frame" for the article. For example 6 years, after that the author can share the article unrestricted. So some authors upload thier articles to academia.edu. Also there is now awealth of open access journals and of open access articles in non-open access journals.
Regards, Ahmed Shawky Mohammedin User:ashashyou
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 3:04 PM EEST wikipedia-library-request@lists.wikimedia.orgwrote:
Send Wikipedia-Library mailing list submissions to
wikipedia-library@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-library
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikipedia-library-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikipedia-library-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-Library digest..."
Today's Topics:
OA (James McArdle)
Re: OA (Paul S. Wilson)
Re: OA (Paul S. Wilson)
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:24:29 +1000
From: James McArdle jmcardle@vic.chariot.net.au
To: "wikipedia-library@lists.wikimedia.org"
wikipedia-library@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia Library] OA
Message-ID: 639DC974-9E45-4F40-AFA5-38997664A455@vic.chariot.net.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi,
In relation to Open Access papers, I'm wondering if WPL has had dealings with Academia.edu http://academia.edu/? (I'm new to WPL). Their website makes available papers across all disciplines by current academics who are subscribed.
Outsiders can see a few recommended articles, but there is a wealth of material hidden from them. I have contacts there as I am one of their recommending editors.
Can you tell me from your experience, is it worthwhile exploring whether of access can be provided to,or via, WPL for our users?
Regards,
James
James McArdle
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:27:41 -0500
From: "Paul S. Wilson" paulscrawl@gmail.com
To: Mailing list for the Wikipedia Library project
wikipedia-library@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia Library] OA
Message-ID:
CAOVDCgMKw7VfrHrOmqimO97B+8fSXm40pfG8fc3LKX5GyPmtVA@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Interesting question, James.
Academia.edu http://academia.edu/ serves millions as a personal repository for their academic
preprints (usually legal) and published versions (often not so) - the
question is, do we dare risk such when institutional depositories with
vetting of allowable content are readily available?
As an experiment, [[Academia.edu http://academia.edu/]] article has a cited reference to
paywalled content (footnote #11 as of today) to which I've appended a link
to the preprint version of the article on academia.edu, noting "/*
Reception */ + "Academia.edu http://academia.edu/ preprint" (with differing pagination from
canonical published version; other editorial changes likely) of Thelwall &
Kousha (2012)".
Per Academia.edu http://academia.edu/'s voluminous [ https://www.academia.edu/terms terms of
use], such "Member Content" is severely restricted.
Would be interested in gaining access to site content, if TWL can negotiate
- or learn to live with - latter.
Paul S. Wilson
Research Coordinator
The Wikipedia Library
Wikipedia-Library mailing list Wikipedia-Library@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-library
Wikipedia-Library mailing list Wikipedia-Library@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-library