tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16081779.post116283520983080917..comments2023-10-28T09:24:38.420+01:00Comments on iPhylo: The politics and practice of accessibility in systematicsRoderic Pagehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00269598293846172649noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16081779.post-1162894651663627952006-11-07T10:17:00.000+00:002006-11-07T10:17:00.000+00:00RodThe conclusion are certainly right, only a mix ...Rod<BR/><BR/>The conclusion are certainly right, only a mix of things will do. But it is also true, that you can't talk all of it at once. And finally, all the open access etc is an empty shell, if we do not have the science behind, people asking questions, a set up allowing creative solutions to data you provide, etc.<BR/><BR/>OA is one tool though to not only open up our vast archives, communicate better, but live up to the notion, that systematics is part of life sciences and needs adequate funding.<BR/><BR/>So, the OA discussion will fade unless we deliver - not the technicians but we scientists.<BR/><BR/>We, you, I, all the others have to get, for example, ispecies running and make it a undispensable tool because it provides accurate acces and is being becoming part of other science domains.<BR/><BR/>Actually, it would be interesting to put some figures on how much money is being spent in oa and doing systematics - it is still very much biased towards the latter.<BR/><BR/>There is also another perspective in this. The publishers think every day about how to keep their journal business afloat - we hardly ever think about this. But unless there is a dialog, a pretty active dialog, we have hardly any voice in these developments.Donat Agostihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307072466894365550noreply@blogger.com