Options

Pay-wall policy

Thinking about carbon dioxide sequestration (and whether polycarbonate is derived from carbon dioxide), I referred to "Carbon Dioxide Capture: Prospects for New Materials" by D. M. D'Alessandro, et al in Angew. Chemie. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 2-27 (DOI: 10.1002/anie.201000431). I would post it as recommended reading but it's probably behind a pay-wall for many readers. I wondered if we want to take a position on this? Ideally, I will refer only to what is in the public domain. Even in that context, we may need to be aware of what is "fair use" in quoting passages.

Comments

  • 1.

    I say go for it, but just note the pay-wall issue somewhere in the entry.

    Comment Source:I say go for it, but just note the pay-wall issue somewhere in the entry.
  • 2.
    edited October 2010

    Hi, Walter! Great to see you here! For those not in the know, Walter Blackstock is a chemist here in Singapore, who works in Biopolis. And while I'm making introduction: Eric works on finance and lives in Hong Kong.

    So much important scientific literature is trapped behind pay-walls that we'd be shooting ourselves in our collective foot by not referring to it. So don't worry about that too much.

    However, very often a Google search will turn up a freely available version of the paper in question! And that's the case here! I did a Google search and quickly found this free version of Carbon Dioxide Capture: Prospects for New Materials.

    So, how about linking to the free version?

    In more official bibliographical entries, I've been putting a link on the paper title when the paper is accessible, and a link to the journal title when the closest you can get for free is an abstract or something on the journal. See for example my entry Carbon is forever.

    But for the recommended reading page, the main thing is to get people to add as much important stuff as possible.

    Comment Source:Hi, Walter! Great to see you here! For those not in the know, Walter Blackstock is a chemist here in Singapore, who works in Biopolis. And while I'm making introduction: Eric works on finance and lives in Hong Kong. So much important scientific literature is trapped behind pay-walls that we'd be shooting ourselves in our collective foot by not referring to it. So don't worry about that too much. However, very often a Google search will turn up a freely available version of the paper in question! And that's the case here! I [did a Google search](http://www.google.com/search?q=Carbon+Dioxide+Capture%3A+Prospects+for+New+Materials) and quickly found [this free version of <b>Carbon Dioxide Capture: Prospects for New Materials</b>](http://alchemy.cchem.berkeley.edu/jeff/paper118.pdf). So, how about linking to the free version? In more official bibliographical entries, I've been putting a link on the paper title when the paper is accessible, and a link to the journal title when the closest you can get for free is an abstract or something on the journal. See for example my entry [[Carbon is forever]]. But for the recommended reading page, the main thing is to get people to add as much important stuff as possible.
  • 3.
    edited October 2010

    On a slightly related note, I haven't yet included any illustrations I've found elsewhere into articles (as illustrations for original Azimuth text rather than within a "quote", where it's probably ok for ME in the UK to include under fair dealing) because I hadn't yet taken the time to figure out whether I needed to contact the author or if it was under a liberal licence. Is it worth having a behind the scenes page that builds up lists of the policy used by frequently used resources (eg, it's finally registered with me that ALL the www.theoildrum.com content is under the " Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License")?

    Comment Source:On a slightly related note, I haven't yet included any illustrations I've found elsewhere into articles (as illustrations for original Azimuth text rather than within a "quote", where it's probably ok for ME in the UK to include under fair dealing) because I hadn't yet taken the time to figure out whether I needed to contact the author or if it was under a liberal licence. Is it worth having a behind the scenes page that builds up lists of the policy used by frequently used resources (eg, it's finally registered with me that ALL the www.theoildrum.com content is under the " Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License")?
  • 4.

    Is it worth having a behind the scenes page that builds up lists of the policy used by frequently used resources (eg, it's finally registered with me that ALL the www.theoildrum.com content is under the " Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License")?

    Sure, we can have a "meta" page on the wiki that does this. In fact, now we do! It's called Copyright issues.

    Comment Source:>Is it worth having a behind the scenes page that builds up lists of the policy used by frequently used resources (eg, it's finally registered with me that ALL the www.theoildrum.com content is under the " Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License")? Sure, we can have a "meta" page on the wiki that does this. In fact, now we do! It's called [[Copyright issues]].
Sign In or Register to comment.