28th February 2013, 10:38 PM
Hmmm this has prompted me to actually have a look at OASIS. I haven't worked much in the UK, but was filling in those forms happily for a few sites last year, didn't really know what they were about. That kind of led me to ADS and through their to some very unappealing PDF's of some uninspiring testing reports I had written. I see... but can someone just explain where OASIS stops and ADS starts because I'm confused!
An archive of over 18,000 pieces of grey literature is one hell of a resource but I would see the problem being one of quality control. If we go with this model, as suggested above, then can we really say the responsibility of the commissioning company has been properly discharged? Who has checked the report, has it been edited, has the site been given enough care and attention by someone with the suitable level of knowledge, and has the post ex analysis been done? If all those things are standard conditions of entry then wonderful, but then if that standard has been reached the material is ready for proper publication, so why not go the whole hog? I also think the companies are missing a trick in regards to their staff, in terms of boosting moral and strengthening loyalty the management should consider spending a few quid publishing things, most of us get a buzz from seeing our stuff in print.
Ramblings almost over... for the couple of reports I had written last year that I found on ADS then it's actually the perfect home for them, they are of almost zero interest or significance, and I think in Bob's article he struggles to establish how many reports out of the total would be worth publishing. But those that are, and even if we assume its just 15% or even just 10% should be published. The only people who don't benefit from that are tight fisted company owners and they, frankly, can go f**k themselves with a breadknife
An archive of over 18,000 pieces of grey literature is one hell of a resource but I would see the problem being one of quality control. If we go with this model, as suggested above, then can we really say the responsibility of the commissioning company has been properly discharged? Who has checked the report, has it been edited, has the site been given enough care and attention by someone with the suitable level of knowledge, and has the post ex analysis been done? If all those things are standard conditions of entry then wonderful, but then if that standard has been reached the material is ready for proper publication, so why not go the whole hog? I also think the companies are missing a trick in regards to their staff, in terms of boosting moral and strengthening loyalty the management should consider spending a few quid publishing things, most of us get a buzz from seeing our stuff in print.
Ramblings almost over... for the couple of reports I had written last year that I found on ADS then it's actually the perfect home for them, they are of almost zero interest or significance, and I think in Bob's article he struggles to establish how many reports out of the total would be worth publishing. But those that are, and even if we assume its just 15% or even just 10% should be published. The only people who don't benefit from that are tight fisted company owners and they, frankly, can go f**k themselves with a breadknife