Scholarly Communication: The Use and Non-Use of E-Print Archives for the Dissemination of Scientific Information

Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship

Volumn 2002, Issue 36, 2002, Pages

  Lawal, Ibironke ^a  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871350705     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10921206     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.29173/istl1918     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Association of Research Libraries (ARL). 2000. Principles for emerging systems of scholarly publishing. ARL Newsletter. [Online]. Available: {http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/tempe/index.shtml} [November 8, 2002].
2. Bellis, Mary. 2002. Fax, fax machine and facsimile invention. [Online]. Available: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfax.htm [November 8, 2002.]
3. Brown, Cecelia. 2001. The coming of age of e-prints in the literature of physics. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 31. [Online]. Available: http://www.istl.org/01-summer/refereed.html [November 8, 2002].
4. Buckholtz, Alison. 2001. Returning scientific publishing to scientists. Journal of Electronic Publishing 7(1). [Online]. Available: http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07-01/buckholtz.html [November 8, 2002].
5. Case, Mary M. 2001. The impact of serial costs on library collections. ARL Newsletter (218):9. [Online]. Available: {http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/costimpact.pdf} [November 8, 2002].
6. Eisen, Michael and Pat Brown. 2001. Should scientific literature be privately owned and controlled? Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/Eisen.htm [November 8, 2002].
7. Folster, Mary B. 1995. Information seeking patterns: social sciences. Reference Librarian 49/50:83-93.
8. Gould, Constance C. and Pearce, Karla. 1991. Information Needs in the Sciences: an Assessment. Mountain View, California: Research Library Group.
9. Harnad, S. 2000. Ingelfinger over-ruled: The role of the web in the future of refereed medical journal publishing. Lancet Perspectives 256 (December supplement: s16). [Online]. Available: { http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.lancet.htm} [November 8, 2002].
10. Harnad, S. 2001. The Self archiving initiative. Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html [November 8, 2002].
11. Karow, Julia. 2001. Publish free or perish. Scientific American April 23. [Online]. Available: {http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=publish-free-or-perish&catID=4&pageNumber=1} [November 8, 2002].
12. Marshall, Eliot. 1998. Good, bad, or necessary evil? Science 282 (5390): 860-867.
13. Marshall, Eliot. 1999. Varmus defends E-biomed proposal, prepares to push ahead. Science 284 (5423): 2062-2063.
14. Mellman, Ira. 2001. Setting logical priorities. Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: { http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/mellman.html} [November 8, 2002].
15. National Science Board. 2002. Doctoral scientists and engineers in academia. In Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington D.C.: National Science Board. [Online]. Available: {https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150818085944/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c5/c5s2.htm} [November 8, 2002].
16. Primack, Alice Lefler. 1992. Journal literature of the Physical Sciences: A Manual. Metuchen, N. J.: Scarecrow Press.
17. Warnick, Walter. 2001 Tailoring access to the source: preprints, grey literature and journal articles. Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/warnick.html [November 8, 2002].
18. Bachrach, S. R. et al. 1998. Who should own scientific papers? Science 281(5382) : 1459-60.
19. Brody, T. 2000. Mining the social life of an e-print archive. [Online]. Available: {http://opcit.eprints.org/ijh198/} [November 8, 2002].
20. Brophy, Peter. 2001. The Library in the Twenty-First Century. London: Library Association Publishing.
21. Campbell, Robert. 2001. Information access: what is to be done? Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/campbell.html [November 8, 2002].
22. E-Print survey: what do authors think? British Medical Journal. [Online]. Available: {http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/319/7202/DC1} [November 8, 2002].
23. Eysenbach, Gunther. 2000. The impact of preprint servers and electronic publishing on biomedical research. Current Opinion in Immunology 12: 499-503.
24. Haank, Derk. 2001. Content and context in one service, tailored to meet the needs of scientists. Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/hank.html [November 8, 2002].
25. Harnad, S. 1991. Post Gutenberg galaxy: the fourth revolution in the means of production of knowledge. Public Acccess Computer Systems Review [Online]. 2(1): 39-53. Available: {http://epress.lib.uh.edu/pr/v2/n1/harnad.2n1} [November 8, 2002].
26. Kling, Rob and Geoffrey McKim. 1999. Scholarly communication and the continuum of electronic publishing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50(10): 890-906.
27. Lawrence, Steve. 2001. Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact. Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html [November 8, 2002].
28. Luzi, Daniela. 1998. E-Print archives: A new communication pattern for grey literature. Interlending & Document Supply 25(3) : 130-39.
29. Marshall, Eliot. 1999 E-biomed morphs to e-biosci, focus shifts to reviewed papers. Science 285(5429) : 810-11.
30. Odlyzko, Andrew. 2000. The future of scientific communication. In Access to Publicly Financed Research: The Global Research Village III, edited by P. Schroeder and P. Wouters, Amsterdam: NIWI, 273-78.
31. Odlyzko, Andrew. The public library of science and the ongoing revolution in scholarly communication. Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/odlyzko.html [November 8, 2002].
32. Okerson, Ann. 2001. What price 'free?' Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/okerson.html [November 8, 2002].
33. O'Reilly, Tim. 2001. Information wants to be valuable. Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/oreilly.html [November 8, 2002].
34. Public Library of Science. 2001. PLoS Open Letter. [Online]. Available: {http://www.plos.org/support/openletter.shtml} [November 8, 2002].
35. Roberts, Richard J. et al. 2001. Building a "Genbank" of the published literature. Science 291: 2318-19. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5512/2318a [November 8, 2002].
36. Rzepa, Henry S. 2002. Chemistry preprints. Computer Software Reviews 42(3): 767.
37. Smith, Richard. 1997. Peer review: reform or revolution? British Medical Journal 315: 759-60.
38. Stallman, Richard. 2001. Science must 'push copyright aside.' Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/stallman.html [November 8, 2002].
39. Walker, Thomas J. 2001. Authors willing to pay for instant web access. Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/walker.html [November 8, 2002].
40. Wells, Robert D. and Herbert Tabor. 2001. Position statement by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Nature webdebates. [Online]. Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/asbmn.html [November 8, 2002].