Talk:Open-access journal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Petréa Mitchell (Big Cleanup checklist) |
imported>Daniel Mietchen m (Talk:Open access journal moved to Talk:Open-access journal: better with hyphen, for clarification) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{subpages}} | ||
}} | |||
This article seems to confuse the terms "open access" with "self archiving." | This article seems to confuse the terms "open access" with "self archiving." | ||
| Line 16: | Line 6: | ||
::The WP articles have been improved since then, and the new one should probably be brought over and merged. | ::The WP articles have been improved since then, and the new one should probably be brought over and merged. | ||
Open access journal is the alternative to self-archiving, both making up the two ways of open access. .[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 21:29, 18 February 2007 (CST) | Open access journal is the alternative to self-archiving, both making up the two ways of open access. .[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 21:29, 18 February 2007 (CST) | ||
:::There has very recently been a major revamping of the WP article by a different editor than the usual ones there, and I will update this article to match. It still leaves open the question of whether the WP article is so peculiar as to need rewriting altogether. [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 23:05, 31 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 06:23, 14 September 2010
This article seems to confuse the terms "open access" with "self archiving." The two are really separate concepts. In the recent edit, I've tried to start separating them, but there is more work to do. --Peter Murray 08:45, 31 January 2007 (CST)
- The WP articles have been improved since then, and the new one should probably be brought over and merged.
Open access journal is the alternative to self-archiving, both making up the two ways of open access. .DavidGoodman 21:29, 18 February 2007 (CST)
- There has very recently been a major revamping of the WP article by a different editor than the usual ones there, and I will update this article to match. It still leaves open the question of whether the WP article is so peculiar as to need rewriting altogether. DavidGoodman 23:05, 31 March 2007 (CDT)