-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
make note of REPEC #22
Comments
@larsvilhuber excellent resource, thank you for bringing this to our attention! Just briefly scrolled through the descriptions, and was wondering: Is it true that all content referenced by REPEC is open access in one way or the other? I just tried some of the links, and those I sampled didn't mention open licensing or other attribution of any sort ... |
No, not all content is open access. However, I believe repec itself does not capture license, only whether a document is free to download or not (see the redif metadata schema it uses). That's at least partially due to the fact that the metadata schema stems from the early 2000s, or late 1990s, when there was less concern about the specific license (and CC BY was a glimmer in the future). I have a reference somewhere about an early history of repec and more details, can provide later.
…--
Lars Vilhuber
on mobile device
________________________________
From: Tobias Steiner <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 6:06:44 PM
To: OpenScienceMOOC/Module-6-Open-Access-to-Research-Papers <[email protected]>
Cc: Lars Vilhuber <[email protected]>; Mention <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OpenScienceMOOC/Module-6-Open-Access-to-Research-Papers] make note of REPEC (#22)
@larsvilhuber<https://github.com/larsvilhuber> excellent resource, thank you for bringing this to our attention! Just briefly scrolled through the descriptions, and was wondering: Is it true that all content referenced by REPEC is open access in one way or the other? I just tried some of the links, and those I sampled didn't mention open licensing or other attribution of any sort ...
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#22?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABVSQ6HJY3EERVOS27QLVVDQIA5QJA5CNFSM4ITXFZZKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD55JAZQ#issuecomment-528126054>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVSQ6HOZNIPYLPI7QPIVBLQIA5QJANCNFSM4ITXFZZA>.
|
Here's an excerpt from a working paper (sorry, not yet public) that I wrote last year:
References for the above:
|
ReDIF documentation: http://openlib.org/acmes/root/docu/redif_1.html The only encoding of anything resembling a license is in the "File-restriction:" field:
All ReDIF files are on a public server, so it should be feasible to parse them for any additional info. |
Excellent, thank you, I will try and work this in today! :) |
You fail to mention in your resources http://repec.org/, one of the oldest open indexes to grey literature (mostly in economics). It is not centralized, but has been around since the last 1990s, and has links between published (paywalled) articles and their corresponding working papers.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: