Talk:Open-access journal: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Petréa Mitchell
(Big Cleanup checklist)
imported>DavidGoodman
(needs update from WP)
Line 16: Line 16:
::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)

Revision as of 22:05, 31 March 2007


Article Checklist for "Open-access journal"
Workgroup category or categories Library and Information Science Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status External article: from another source, with little change
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Petréa Mitchell 09:51, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





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)