Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] List of links to news and commentary about Plan S
Thanks, Danny. Also see the items tagged with "oa.plan_s" by the Open
Access Tracking Project.
http://tagteam.harvard.edu/hubs/oatp/tag/oa.plan_s
This tag library is crowd-sourced and updated in real time. Right now it
has 383 items.
To help build the tag library (that is, to tag for OATP), here's how to
start or see what's involved.
bit.ly/oatp-start-tagging
Best,
Peter
Peter Suber
bit.ly/petersuber
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 5:49 AM Danny Kingsley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Because it is useful to me, and presumably therefore to everyone else too,
> I have pulled together as best I can the various news articles,
> commentaries and responses to Plan S into a blog
> https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=2433
>
> Please send any others via the comments, and I’ll upload them.
>
>
>
> No comments about not having a life please.
>
>
>
> Danny
>
>
>
> *Dr Danny Kingsley*
>
> Deputy Director - Scholarly Communication & Research Services
>
> Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
>
> Cambridge University Libraries
>
> West Road, CB3 9DR
>
> e: da...@cam.ac.uk
>
> p: 01223 747 437
>
> m: 07711 500 564
>
> t: @dannykay68
>
> w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk
>
> b: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk
>
> o: orcid.org/-0002-3636-5939
>
>
>
> [image: IMG_BannerNorthernLightsREFlogo_V10_20180417]
>
>
>
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Journal-flipping report open for public comments
This is just a reminder that the preliminary draft of "Converting Scholarly
Journals to Open Access," by David Solomon, Bo-Christer Björk, and Mikael
Laakso, is open for public comments.
https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/public-consultation/
For more details, see the March 15 announcement.
https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/call-for-public-comments/
In about a month, we'll have to close the public comment period, or at
least move on to the next phase of preparing the revised report for
publication. If you have any comments to add, or if you want to share this
draft with others who might have comments, please do so in the next few
weeks.
Thanks,
Peter
Peter Suber
Director, Office for Scholarly Communication
Widener Library G-20
Harvard University
bit.ly/petersuber
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Journal-flipping report open for public comments
Last year (April 2015) the Harvard Library Office for Scholarly
Communication issued a request for proposals to write "a comprehensive
literature review on methods for converting subscription-based scholarly
journals to open access."
https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/request-for-proposal/
In June 2015 we awarded the contract to David Solomon, Bo-Christer Björk,
and Mikael Laakso.
We're happy to announce today that the preliminary version of their report
is now open for public comments.
https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/public-consultation/
Please read it and add comments, and please spread the word to help us
gather as many useful comments as possible.
>From our original RFP: "The purpose of the public comments is to supplement
the literature review, make it more complete, more detailed, and more
useful. For example, the public comments might add readings omitted from
the literature review, extract new recommendations from readings already
covered, suggest new clarity or detail for recommendations already
formulated, and add notes to help readers consider the merits of the
recommendations."
The version we release today will not be the final version. After the
public-comment period (toward the end of April 2016), we'll create a new
version incorporating selected public comments, and pass it to a panel of
experts for an additional set of comments. Then Dave, Bo-Christer, and
Mikael will make their final revisions in light of the public comments, the
panelist comments, our comments from within the Office for Scholarly
Communication, and their own second thoughts. We'll add a preface and
publish that version in the summer or early fall.
We don't promise to incorporate all the public comments in the final
version, not even all attributed comments. But we'll favor comments that
carry real-name attribution. The panelist comments will all carry real-name
attribution.
(If you post a comment on the document, you'll be granting us permission to
include it in this and future versions under a CC-BY version 4.0
international license.)
We thank Arcadia for the funds we used to commission this research.
We thank Eddie Tejeda, Christian Wach, and the Institute for the Future of
the Book for CommentPress, the open-source WordPress plugin we're using to
post the current draft for public comments. We also thank Kathleen
Fitzpatrick for the CommentPress theme we adapted for the present use.
http://futureofthebook.org/commentpress/
Finally, we thank David Solomon, Bo-Christer Björk, and Mikael Laakso for
their careful research and their willingness to subject it to public
comment before final publication.
Home page for the journal-flipping project
https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/
Thanks,
Peter
Peter Suber
bit.ly/petersuber
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: a chronology about open access
Thanks for the correction, Hélène. Yes, I started my timeline in 2001 or so. In 2009, I gave stopped trying to maintain it myself and turned it over to the Open Access Directory for communal updating. Best, Peter Peter Suber bit.ly/petersuber On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Hélène.Bosc hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr wrote: Marie, Something to change in your chronology! You say : *2009-02 The **Timeline of the Open Access Movement* http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm* by Peter Suber* was a timeline of “the worldwide effort to provide free online access to scientific and scholarly research literature, especially peer-reviewed journal articles and their preprints”. His timeline was then turned over to the *Open Access Directory (OAD)* http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Timeline for it to be easier to read, to edit and to enlarge. The *Timeline of Open Access Movement* was formerly called the *Timeline of the Free Online Scholarship Movement* and it was created in the beginning of 2001, isn't it Peter? Hélène Bosc - Original Message - *From:* marie lebert marie.leb...@gmail.com *To:* boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk ; goal@eprints.org *Sent:* Monday, June 22, 2015 11:32 AM *Subject:* [GOAL] a chronology about open access Dear all: https://marielebert.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/openaccesschronology/ Best regards from France, Marie -- ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fwd: RFP for journal-flipping project
Please consider this opportunity for yourself, and please forward it to others who may be interested. Thanks, Peter Peter Suber bit.ly/petersuber -- cut here -- Request for Proposal (RFP): Writing a literature review on methods for converting subscription-based scholarly journals to open access Release date for this RFP: April 16, 2015 Due date for responses: May 30, 2015 Start date for the work: July 1, 2015 End date for the work: January 31, 2016 Issued by: Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC) The project will be supervised by Peter Suber, Director of the Office for Scholarly Communication. Proposal requested The Harvard OSC requests bids or tenders from scholars interested in writing a comprehensive literature review on methods for converting subscription-based scholarly journals to open access. By “open access” (OA) for this purpose we mean global, immediate, digital, online access which is free charge and which makes the content free for reuse under open licenses, preferably CC-BY. By an “OA journal” for this purpose, we mean one that makes all its research articles OA, not just some of them, as with hybrid journals. The literature review will focus on how journals have converted or might convert to OA, not on why. It will focus on converting non-OA journals, not launching new OA journals. As far as possible, it should identify evidence on the consequences of conversion, e.g. for submissions, readership, quality, impact, and finances. It should identify pathways already taken by converted journals and pathways proposed but not yet tried. It should formulate these pathways as recommendations (steps, plans, instructions) for journals, or journals of a certain kind, to consider. Whenever possible, each recommendation should cite and link to relevant evidence. If the literature review at this stage is of sufficient quality, the project will make it public and solicit public comments. The purpose of the public comments is to supplement the literature review, make it more complete, more detailed, and more useful. For example, the public comments might add readings omitted from the literature review, extract new recommendations from readings already covered, suggest new clarity or detail for recommendations already formulated, and add notes to help readers consider the merits of the recommendations. The project will then solicit comments from an invited panel of experts on the recommendations in the report, as enlarged or annotated by public comments. The panelists will endorse any recommendations they find worth endorsing, and specify the scholarly niches for which they endorse or recommend them. We hope to make the final version public, as enlarged with with the panelists’ endorsements and selected public comments. It will include full attribution to the author of the literature review and the authors of the comments and endorsements. The literature review should be submitted in digital form and ready for public comments by January 31, 2016. Submitting a proposal We envisage that the literature review will take about seven person-months. Candidates should take this into account when developing their proposals. Candidates should describe their qualifications to do the work and the amount they request to do it in the time allowed (July 1, 2015 - January 31, 2016). We encourage candidates who have published related work to cite and link to it in their submissions. Please submit the bid or tender, or any inquiries, by email to Arlene Navarro at arlene_nava...@harvard.edu. The submission deadline is May 30, 2015. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fwd: SPARC Statement in Response to Dept. of Energy Public Access Plan
[Forwarding from SPARC. --Peter Suber.] -- Forwarded message -- From: Sparc Media sparcme...@arl.org Date: Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:05 PM Subject: SPARC Statement in Response to Dept. of Energy Public Access Plan To: me...@sparc.arl.org *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* Contact: Ranit Schmelzer, 202.538.1065 me...@sparc.arl.org *SPARC Statement on the Department of Energy’s Plan for Increasing Public Access to the Results of Federally-Funded Research* Washington, DC – Following is a statement by Heather Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) plan http://www.energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan for increasing public access to the results of federally-funded scientific research. Twenty-one agencies and departments were required to draft plans under a landmark White House Directive http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) on February 22, 2013. “The White House Directive affirmed the principle that the public has a right to freely *access, search, download* and *analyze* the entire collection of articles and data resulting from research funded by the U.S. government. This will accelerate the pace of discovery and innovation, fuel economic growth and strengthen our global competitiveness. There are three key principles of the Directive – ensuring timely access, ease of access, and the ability to fully reuse these research results. SPARC will use these measures as we evaluate each agency’s plan, to ensure that the intent of the White House Directive is fully realized. “The Administration has made open access a priority, and that is a huge step forward. The Department of Energy’s plan is the first opportunity we have to see how the Administration will deliver on this vision – and there are clearly mixed results. The DOE’s plan takes steps towards achieving the goals of the Directive, but falls short in some key areas. “Most critically, the DOE plan does not adequately address the *reuse rights* that are necessary for the public to do more than simply *access * and *read *individual articles. Without clearly articulating these reuse rights, the public’s ability to download, analyze, text mine, data mine, and perform computational analysis on these articles is severely limited, and a crucial principle of the White House Directive cannot be fully realized. “We note that in its accompanying plan for ensuring access to digital data, the DOE specifically recognizes the need for data contained in its articles to be made open and machine-readable. We call on the DOE to work with the research community – and other Federal Agencies – to develop and provide clear, consistent reuse rights requirements for both articles and data resulting from their funded research. “In terms of providing *timely access* to results of DOE funded research articles, while SPARC believes that immediate access is preferable, we are pleased that the plan conforms with OSTP’s recommendation that articles be made available no later than 12 months after publication. The plan does allow for articles to be made available sooner than 12 months, and we encourage DOE-funded researchers to choose the shortest possible embargo period for their work. “The DOE plan is a mixed bag in terms of *ease of access*. While we applaud DOE for providing access to its articles through a variety of locations, including its own Agency database, through institutional repositories, as well as via publisher websites, the plan misses crucial opportunities. The establishment of the PAGES portal provides a first step towards locating DOE articles on these distributed web sites. However, we are concerned that the plan places too strong an emphasis on defaulting to versions of articles residing on publishers’ websites, where terms and conditions of use may be restricted. SPARC encourages DOE to ensure that articles are deposited into repositories immediately upon publication and are made available via channels where their reuse can be fully leveraged. “The DOE’s plan suggests they are approaching the development of their public access plan as an iterative process and that community feedback will be welcomed and incorporated as the plan evolves. SPARC, and the entire open access community, are committed to working with the DOE – and all Federal Agencies – to ensure their plans meet the intent of the White House Directive. In doing so, we are confident that the public will truly have timely, unfettered access to the research results and the ability to fully utilize it.” ### SPARC®, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, is an international alliance of academic and research libraries working to correct imbalances in the scholarly publishing system. Developed by the Association of Research
[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK Netherlands: Part I
I hope that Dutch researchers will seize the opportunity that Wouter Gerritsma describes, and save the Netherlands from repeating the mistake of the UK. Note, however, that the Netherlands has flirted with gold OA mandates at least twice before, and in both cases prior to the Finch report in the UK. 1. In a November 2009 interview, Henk Schmidt, Rector of Erasmus University Rotterdam, described his plans to require OA, with a preference for gold over green. I intend obliging our researchers to circulate their articles publicly, for example no more than six months after publication. I'm aiming for 2011, if possible in collaboration with publishers via the 'Golden Road' and otherwise without the publishers via the 'Green Road'. http://web.archive.org/web/20100213075122/http://www.openaccess.nl/index.php?option=com_vipquotesview=quoteid=30 However, in September 2010, he announced the university's new OA policy, which is green. http://rechtennieuws.nl/30283/als-je-niet-gelezen-wordt-bestaat-je-werk-niet-erasmus-universiteit-zet-in-op-open-access-publiceren.html http://roarmap.eprints.org/295/ 2. In January 2011, J.J. Engelen, Chairman of the NWO (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), described his preference for a future gold OA policy. These goals of scientic publishing are best reached by means of an open access publishing business modelOpen access publishing should become a requirement for publicly funded research. In order to make open access publishing a success, the enthusiastic cooperation of the professional publishing companies active on the scientific market is highly desirable. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2011-0622 Peter Peter Suber bit.ly/petersuber On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter wouter.gerrit...@wur.nlwrote: @Stevan, Yes Stevan the Dutch secretary of education his letter has quite a bit of the Finch tone in it. But there are also some opportunities in his letter for repositories. Dekker actually asks for exact figures on OA in the Netherlands. To obtain insight into the situation I request the universities, KNAW and NWO to provide numbers on Open Access publications through the various clearly defined variants of OA. In the Netherlands we have of course Narcis http://www.narcis.nl already, a comprehensive repository of nearly all OA publications in the Netherlands. But counting OA publications only is not sufficient. That is a small mistake in Dekker his letter. What is less well known is that all Dutch universities have to report to ministry of Education all the scientific output as well. This happens through the VSNU http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Feiten_en_Cijfers/Scientific_Research_Agreed_Definitions__def_2011_IRRH-20110624.pdf If due to this letter of Dekker it was decided that all reports on the output of the Dutch Science system to the ministry would be based on the full registration of all output registered in Narcis, on top of all OA publications it already registers, the underlying repositories would be in a much better position. If only Narcis takes up its responsibility and makes reports along the lines I did nearly 2 years ago http://wowter.net/2012/02/10/a-census-of-open-access-repositories-in-the-netherlands/the repository infrastructure in the Netherlands would be reinforced as well. So apart from the fact that OA is on the political agenda in the Netherlands, there is an important momentum for Dutch repositories to seize right now. All the best Wouter Wouter Gerritsma Team leader research support Information Specialist – Bibliometrician Wageningen UR Library PO box 9100 6700 HA Wageningen The Netherlands ++31 3174 83052 wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl%0d wageningenur.nl/library @wowter http://twitter.com/Wowter/ wowter.net *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad *Sent:* zaterdag 16 november 2013 21:50 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Cc:* LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; jisc-repositories *Subject:* [GOAL] The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK Netherlands: Part I The UK and the Netherlands -- not coincidentally, the home bases of Big Publishing for refereed research -- have issued coordinated statements in support of what cannot be described other than as a publisher's nocturnal fantasy, in the face of the unstoppable worldwide clamour for Open Access. Here are the components of the publishers' nocturnal: (1) Do whatever it takes to sustain or increase your current revenue streams. (2) Your current revenue streams come mainly from subscriptions. (3) Claim far and wide that everything has to be done to sustain publishers' subscription revenue, otherwise publishing will be destroyed, and with it so will peer review, and research itself. (4) With (3) as your justification, embargo Green OA self-archiving for as long
[GOAL] Fwd: Berlin OA conference: registration for remaining seats
[Forwarding from Georg Botz. --Peter Suber.] As of today, the registration for the Berlin 11 Open Access conference is open to the public. Because of the special nature of this year's conference, celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Berlin Declaration, a large fraction of participants has been invited. But from now on, the remaining seats will be assigned in the order of registration. Please visit the conference website www.berlin11.org for information about the program, venue, and the registration procedure (registration password: OAC13mpg ). In case you have questions about the registration process or organisational details please contact us under the following address: berli...@eurokongress.de . On behalf of the conference team, Georg Botz ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA declarations
Also see the Open Access Directory list of declarations in support of OA. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Declarations_in_support_of_OA Note that OAD is a wiki and welcomes additions and corrections from the OA community. Peter Peter Suber bit.ly/petersuber On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Dominique Babini dasbab...@gmail.comwrote: When listing the “B” declarations on Open Access, we should add the “Salvador de Bahía Declaration on Open Access: the developing world perspective”, a Declaration promoted by SciELO in 2005 which urges governments to make Open Access a high priority in their scholary development policies. These include: § Insist that publicly funded research is available in Open Access; § Consider the cost of publication as part of the cost of research; § Strengthen local Open Access journals and repositories, and other relevant initiatives; § Promote the integration of scholarly information from developing countries into the repository of the world’s knowledge. http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/13/unesco-guidelines-provide-a-detailed-review-of-open-access/#.UjZmocbTuoM ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] June 2013 issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
* Announcement (cross-posted) * I just mailed the June issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. This issue doesn't have an article so much as a note in lieu of an article. After 12 years and 168 issues, I'm scaling back. Next month I start a new job as the Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication, and I need to give my new responsibilities the time they deserve. SPARC and I are thinking about what SOAN 2.0 might look like. We don't know yet, but we welcome this chance to rethink the whole operation, its format, frequency, authorship, and purpose. I may continue in some role, for example, on an editorial board or as an occasional contributor. Stay tuned. June 2013 issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/06-01-13.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum. http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan The current and back issues are all open access, of course. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter Peter Suber Senior Researcher, SPARC Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge bit.ly/suber-gplus ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] March 2013 issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
* Announcement (cross-posted) * I just mailed the March issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. This issue takes a close look at the new bill before Congress, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act, and the new directive from the Obama administration, which both require the largest federal research-funding agencies to adopt open-access mandates. March 2013 issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03-02-13.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum. http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan The current and back issues are all open access, of course. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter Peter Suber Senior Researcher, SPARC Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge bit.ly/suber-gplus ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Major new bill mandating open access introduced in Congress
-of-the-art technologies (4.f.2.B.i) and the results of the agency's examination of whether such research papers should include a royalty-free copyright license that is available to the public and that permits the reuse of those research papers, on the condition that attribution is given to the author or authors of the research and any others designated by the copyright owner (4.f.2.B.ii). The Senate and House versions of FASTR are identical. FASTR would apply to the Department of Health and Human Services, among other agencies. Because HHS subsumes the NIH, FASTER would strengthen the NIH policy both by shortening the embargo to six months and by requiring open licenses. The NIH is already, by far, the world's largest funder of non-classified research, with a research budget larger than the GDP of 140 nations. Because FASTR applies to more than a dozen other federal departments as well, I can reaffirm my assessment from August 2009: FRPAA [and now FASTR] would mandate OA for more research literature than any other policy ever adopted or ever proposed. It would significantly increase both the corpus of OA literature and the worldwide momentum for funder OA mandates. It would come as close as any single step could to changing the default for the way we disseminate new scientific work, especially publicly-funded work. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-09.htm#frpaa The NIH budget alone is more than six times larger than the budgets of all seven of the UK research councils put together. Hence, it's significant that FASTR disregards or repudiates the gold-oriented RCUK/Finch policy in the UK, and sticks to the FRPAA model of a pure green mandate. For some of the reasons why I think OA mandates should be green and not gold, or green first, see my critique of the RCUK/Finch policy from September 2012. http://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/9723075 Note that the bill was introduced not only on Valentine's Day, but on the 11th anniversary of the Budapest Open Access Initiative. It's fitting that FASTR recommends libre OA, essentially CC-BY, and the ten-year anniversary statement from the BOAI did the same in Recommendation 2.1: We recommend CC-BY or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work. http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations I wrote a reference page on FRPAA http://bit.ly/hoap-frpaa and have started a similar one on FASTR http://bit.ly/hoap-fastr. So far it's got little more than the summary of the bill I've written here. But I'll enlarge the page over time with the bill's co-sponsors, major statements of support and opposition, ways to help. Take a look and share the URL. This is Part 1 in a series of blog posts on FASTR and other federal actions to support OA to federally-funded research. I'll pull the series of posts together for an article in the March issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. Happy Valentines-BOAI day! Peter Peter Suber Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Senior Researcher, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) bit.ly/suber-gplus ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] Backlash against my blog
[Forwarding from Jeffrey Beall, via the ScholComm list. --Peter Suber.] Colleagues, ** ** I am the author of Scholarly Open Access http://scholarlyoa.com/, a blog that includes lists of questionable scholarly publishers and questionable independent journals. ** ** I'm writing to let people that I've been the victim of an ongoing, organized attempt to discredit me and my blog. ** ** Specifically, I've been a victim of email spoofinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spoofing, in which someone is sending emails that appear to be from me but really are not. ** ** One of the spoofed emails is an offer to reevaluate a publisher's presence on my list for five thousand dollars. These emails try to make it look like I am extorting money from publishers. ** ** Also, someone is going around setting up new blogs that reprint the spoofed email or that include contrived quotes from scholars. An example is herehttp://editormedicinalchemistry.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/jeffrey-beall-is-blackmailing-small-open-access-publishers-through-his-predatory-publishers-blog/. ** ** Additionally, someone is leaving negative comments about me and my work on various OA-related blogs and websites, writing in the names of people prominent in the OA movement. One place this occurred was in the comments section of my October *Nature* piece. The publisher has removed these spurious statements and closed further comments. ** ** I'm going to continue my work identifying questionable and predatory publishers as best I can. Because many of the publishers on my list are true criminals, it's no surprise that they would respond in a criminal way. ** ** I realize my blog is not perfect; I've made mistakes and have tried to learn from them. Many of you have given me valuable advice, and I have tried to implement the good advice as best I could. I have not engaged in any of the activities that they are trying to frame me with. ** ** Thanks for your understanding. ** ** Jeffrey ** ** Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor Scholarly Initiatives Librarian Auraria Library University of Colorado Denver 1100 Lawrence St. Denver, Colo. 80204 USA (303) 556-5936 jeffrey.be...@ucdenver.edu ** ** [image: Description: Description: http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/departments/oiuc/brand/downloads/branddownloads/branddocuments/Logos-E-mail%20Signatures/emailSig_2campus.png] ** ** ** ** image001.jpg___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber
Hi Richard, I argued in the September 2012 issue of my newsletter that the RCUK/Finch incentives will lead no-fee OA journals to start charging fees, if only to avoid leaving money on the table. See Section 7 of this article: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-12.htm#uk-ec Today 70% of OA journals (not articles) charge no fees at all. But that that number will very likely approach zero under the new RCUK policy, at least when publishing articles by RCUK-funded authors. Peter Peter Suber bit.ly/suber-gplus On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: Thanks for the comments David. Your point about not equating Gold OA with APCs is well taken. ** ** But it also invites a question I think: do we know what percentage of papers(not journals, but papers) published Gold OA today incur no APC charge, and what do we anticipate this percentage becoming in a post-Finch world? ** ** Richard * * *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On Behalf Of *David Prosser *Sent:* 11 December 2012 19:53 *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber ** ** As ever, Richard has put together a fascinating and entertaining interview, and augmented it with a really useful essay on the current state of OA policies. ** ** I have a small quibble. On page two, Richard writes: ** ** ...or by means of gold OA, in which researchers (or more usually their funders) pay publishers an article-processing charge (APC) to ensure that their paper is made freely available on the Web at the time of publication. ** ** APCs make up just one business model that can be used to support Gold OA. Gold is OA through journals - it makes no assumption about how the costs of publication are paid for. I think it is helpful to ensure that we do not equate Gold with APCs. ** ** David ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:51, Richard Poynder wrote: *Stuart Shieber is the Welch Professor of Computer Science at Harvard University, **Faculty Co-Director*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sshieber * **of the **Berkman Center for Internet and Society*http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sshieber *, Director of Harvard’s Office for Scholarly Communication (**OSC*http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/ *), and chief architect of the Harvard Open Access (**OA*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access *) Policy — a 2008 initiative that has seen Harvard become a major force in the OA movement.* * * http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-oa-interviews-harvards-stuart.html ATT1..txt ** ** ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] December 2012 issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
* Announcement (cross-posted) * I just mailed the December issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. This issue takes a close look at the idea of an OA evidence rack, a new structure for organizing the evidence in support of the basic propositions in a field and for making that evidence OA. The look-back section reprints short excerpts from SOAN five ago this quarter. The section on SOAN ten years ago is on ice until next fall because ten years ago SOAN was on a year-long hiatus (September 2002 - July 2003). December 2012 issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/12-02-12.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum. http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan The current and back issues are all open access, of course. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter Peter Suber Senior Researcher, SPARC Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge bit.ly/suber-gplus ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Good practices for university open-access policies
In anticipation of worldwide Open Access Week, the Harvard Open Access Project is pleased to release version 1.0 of a guide to good practices for university open-access policies. Gathering together recommendations on drafting, adopting, and implementing OA policies, the guide is based on policies adopted at Harvard, Stanford, MIT, and a couple of dozen other institutions around the world. But it's not limited to policies of this type and includes recommendations that should be useful to institutions taking other approaches. The guide is designed to evolve. As co-authors, we plan to revise and enlarge it over time, building on our own experience and the experience of colleagues elsewhere. We welcome suggestions. The guide deliberately refers to good practices rather than best practices. On many points, there are multiple, divergent good practices. Good practices are easier to identify than best practices. And there can be wider agreement on which practices are good than on which practices are best. The current version of the guide has the benefit of the advice of expert colleagues, and the endorsement of projects and organizations devoted to the spread of effective university OA policies. It has been written in consultation with Ellen Finnie Duranceau, Ada Emmett, Heather Joseph, Iryna Kuchma, and Alma Swan, and has already been endorsed by the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions (COAPI), Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR), Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL), Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS), Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP), Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook (OASIS), Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), and SPARC Europe. Over time we hope to name more consulting experts and endorsing organizations. Please contact us if you or your organization may be interested. We do not assume that consulting experts or endorsing organizations support every recommendation in the guide. The guide should be useful to institutions considering an OA policy, and to faculty and librarians who would like their institution to start considering one. We hope that institutions with working policies will share their experience and recommendations, and that organizers of Open Access Week events will link to the guide and bring it to the attention of their participants. Good practices for university open-access policies http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Good_practices_for_university_open-access_policies Stuart Shieber Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Office for Scholarly Communication, Harvard University http://www.seas.harvard.edu/~shieber Peter Suber Director of the Harvard Open Access Project, Special Advisor to the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication, and Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/psuber Harvard Open Access Project http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] How to stay on top of open-access developments
The Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) recently moved to a more powerful platform, TagTeam, and is more useful than ever. To follow new OA-related news and comment, subscribe to one or more of the project feeds. OATP offers a version to suit just about anyone. RSS feed http://tagteam.harvard.edu/remix/oatp/items.rss Atom feed http://tagteam.harvard.edu/remix/oatp/items.atom Twitter feed https://twitter.com/oatp Email feed http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=OATP-Primaryloc=en_US Let me pause to plug the email feed in particular. It delivers one neatly-formatted email per day. At the top is a table of contents with links to OA-related headlines. At the bottom are the same items with short descriptions, summaries, or excerpts. When you click on the URL to subscribe (above), you'll be asked for your email address and the solution to a captcha. That's it. If you don't want to subscribe to anything, then just bookmark the HTML edition and visit periodically to catch up. http://tagteam.harvard.edu/remix/oatp To follow developments on any OA subtopic, like OA in the social sciences, OA from society publishers, OA for students, OA in Switzerland, or OA in the global south, see the OATP links page on how to construct the URL for the feed published by any OATP tag. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OATP_links If you previously subscribed to an OAPT feed from Connotea, it's time to switch over to the counterpart feed from TagTeam. Going forward, only the TagTeam versions of the OATP feeds will be comprehensive. If you want to go beyond following OATP feeds as a reader, and help build the feeds by tagging new developments, see the details in our transition handout. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Transition_to_TagTeam For background, here's a short introduction to TagTeam, our new open-source platform. http://bit.ly/tagteam-about And here's the OATP home page. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_tracking_project Peter Peter Suber Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Senior Researcher, SPARC bit.ly/suber-gplus ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] How to stay on top of open-access developments
To follow new developments and commentary on open access to research, subscribe to one or more feeds from the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP). We have a version to suit just about anyone. *RSS feed* http://tagteam.harvard.edu/remix/oatp/items.rss *Atom feed* http://tagteam.harvard.edu/remix/oatp/items.atom *Twitter feed* https://twitter.com/oatp *Email feed* http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=OATP-Primaryloc=en_US If you don't want to subscribe to anything, then just bookmark the *HTML edition* and visit periodically to catch up. http://tagteam.harvard.edu/remix/oatp To follow developments on any *OA subtopic*, like OA in the social sciences, OA from society publishers, OA for students, OA in Switzerland, or OA in the global south, see the OATP links page on how to construct the URL for the feed published by any OATP tag. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OATP_links For the past ten days I've been publicizing the OATP transition to TagTeam. You can ignore all that now. The transition is over. Whether you're new to OA or an old hand, follow the news through one of the feeds above. (If you're an old hand, the transition means that you can stop subscribing to the old OATP feeds from Connotea.) If you want to go beyond following OATP feeds as a reader, and help us construct them as a tagger, see the details in our transition handout. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Transition_to_TagTeam Thanks, Peter Peter Suber Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Senior Researcher, SPARC bit.ly/suber-gplus Open Access, MIT Press, 2012 bit.ly/oa-book ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] For users of the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP)
*Reminder for users of the Open Access Tracking Project (OATP)* If you currently subscribe to OATP feeds from Connotea, you should switch over to the TagTeam editions of the same feeds before September 17. After that, only the TagTeam versions of the feeds will be comprehensive and up to date. Likewise, if you currently tag for OATP through Connotea, you are now free to tag for OATP from nearly any other tagging platform --including Connotea and TagTeam themselves, but also including Delicious and CiteULike. (Yes, TagTeam integrates tags from different platforms. We call it interoperable tagging. If you think this is cool, you're right.) If you don't currently subscribe to OATP feeds as a reader or help build them as a tagger, this is a good time to start. For details on the shift to TagTeam, see my blog post from September 8... https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/2NdDHncTLvN ...or the OATP transition handout. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Transition_to_TagTeam For details on TagTeam itself, see my short intro, What is TagTeam? http://bit.ly/tagteam-about For details on OATP itself, see the project home page (now being updated to reflect the transition to TagTeam). http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_tracking_project Best, Peter Peter Suber Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Senior Researcher, SPARC bit.ly/suber-gplus My latest book: Open Access, MIT Press, 2012 bit.ly/oa-book ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Scientists, Foundations, Libraries, Universities, and Advocates Unite and Issue New Recommendations to Make Research Freely Available to All Online
[Forwarding from the Open Society Foundations and SPARC. --Peter Suber.] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 12, 2012 CONTACT: Andrea Higginbotham, SPARC, and...@arl.org; 202-296-2296 Amy Weil, Open Society Foundations, aw...@sorosny.org; 212-548-0381 Scientists, Foundations, Libraries, Universities, and Advocates Unite and Issue New Recommendations to Make Research Freely Available to All Online WASHINGTON -- In response to the growing demand to make research free and available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection, a diverse coalition today issued new guidelines ( http://www.soros.org/openaccess/boai-10-recommendations) that could usher in huge advances in the sciences, medicine, and health. The recommendations were developed by leaders of the Open Access movement ( http://www.soros.org/openaccess/participants), which has worked for the past decade to provide the public with unrestricted, free access to scholarly research—much of which is publicly funded. Making the research publicly available to everyone—free of charge and without most copyright and licensing restrictions—will accelerate scientific research efforts and allow authors to reach a larger number of readers. “The reasons to remove restrictions as far as possible are to share knowledge and accelerate research. Knowledge has always been a public good in a theoretical sense. Open Access makes it a public good in practice,” said professor Peter Suber, director of the Open Access Project at Harvard University and a senior researcher at SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition). The Open Access recommendations include the development of Open Access policies in institutions of higher education and in funding agencies, the open licensing of scholarly works, the development of infrastructure such as Open Access repositories and creating standards of professional conduct for Open Access publishing. The recommendations also establish a new goal of achieving Open Access as the default method for distributing new peer-reviewed research in every field and in every country within ten years’ time. “Science and scholarship are activities funded from the public purse because society believes they will lead to a better future in terms of our health, environment, and culture,” said Heather Joseph, executive director of SPARC. “Anything that maximises the efficacy and efficiency of research benefits every one of us. Open Access is a major tool in that quest. These new recommendations will underpin future developments in communicating the results of research over the next decade.” Today, Open Access is increasingly recognized as a right rather than an abstract ideal. The case for rapid implementation of Open Access continues to grow. Open Access benefits research and researchers; increases the return to taxpayers on their investment in research; and amplifies the social value of research, funding agencies, and research institutions. The Open Access recommendations are the result of a meeting hosted earlier this year by the Open Society Foundations, on the tenth anniversary of the landmark Budapest Open Access Initiative ( http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read), which first defined Open Access. “Foundations rarely have the good fortune to be actively present at the birth of a world-wide movement that fundamentally changes the rules of the game and provides immediate benefit to the world,” said István Rév, director of the Open Society Archives and a member of the Open Society Foundations Global Board. “This is what happened when the Open Society Foundations initiated a meeting at the end of 2001 that gave birth to the Open Access movement.” ### SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), with SPARC Europe and SPARC Japan, is an international alliance of more than 800 academic and research libraries working to create a more open system of scholarly communication. SPARC’s advocacy, educational, and publisher partnership programs encourage expanded dissemination of research. SPARC is on the Web at http://www.arl.org/sparc. The Open Society Foundations work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. Working with local communities in more than 100 countries, the Open Society Foundations support justice and human rights, freedom of expression, and access to public health and education. The Open Society Foundations is on the Web at http://www.soros.org. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] September 2012 issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
* Announcement (cross-posted) * I just mailed the September issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. This issue takes a close look at the major, back-to-back, mid-July OA policy announcements from the UK and Europe. The look-back sections reprint short excerpts from SOAN five and ten years ago this quarter. September 2012 issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-12.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum. http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan The current and back issues are all open access, of course. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter Peter Suber Senior Researcher, SPARC Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge bit.ly/suber-gplus ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Finding a business model for a growing Open Access Journal
See the list of OA journal business models at the Open Access Directory. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models Peter Peter Suber gplus.to/petersuber On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: I am forwarding a message from the OKFN's open-access list ( http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access which uses the term strictly to mean BOAI-compliant). The poster Katie runs a successful OA journal and asks how she can scale up without APCs. She raises the idea of a SCOAP3-like model for cancer. There must be a number of other people with the same question: * they don't want closed access * they don't want author-side fees * they recognize the money has to come from somewhere. Katie (and I) would be interested to know of possible models and possible nuclei of like-minded groups. This seems to me one of the key problems of the current time of transition. -- Forwarded message -- From: Katie Foxall ka...@ecancer.org Date: Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [Open-access] SCOAP3 To: open-acc...@lists.okfn.org Hello all I haven't posted [on OKFN open-access] before but have been following the discussions with much interest and have founds the info and links provided by various people really useful. I run an open access cancer journal http://ecancer.org/ecms which has no author fees - we are currently mainly supported by charity funding but the journal has been growing at a great rate this year so I'm looking into accessing any funding that might be out there to support open access publishing. The reality is that we will have to start charging author fees at some point if we can't get more funding and we really don't want to do that as providing a free service for the oncology community is very important to us. So does anyone know whether there is anything like SCOAP3 in the field of medical publishing? Thanks in advance for any help or advice anyone might be able to give me, Katie Foxall -Original Message- From: open-access-boun...@lists.okfn.org [mailto:open-access-boun...@lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of c...@cameronneylon.net Sent: 18 July 2012 15:50 To: open-acc...@lists.okfn.org Subject: [Open-access] SCOAP3 Not got so much press as the big announcements this week but this is a big deal. Communities can just decide unilaterally to move to OA. http://scoap3.org/news/news94.html ___ open-access mailing list open-acc...@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access ___ open-access mailing list open-acc...@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Dreadful Daily Mail article on Open Access
Hi Eric, For a direct response to the publisher claim that OA will cost jobs, see my blog post from January of this year. https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/L6QNRbt4S8x For a longer version of same response, see my article in the March 2012 issue of SOAN on the Research Works Act and Federal Research Public Access Act. (The article covers many other topics; for this particular argument, see Section 1.11.) http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/03-02-12.htm#rwafrpaa Peter Peter Suber gplus.to/petersuber On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com wrote: The statement Publishers are concerned that if an open access policy is adopted then some of the biggest scientific companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline, might move research work from British labs to those overseas where it will able to protect itself from open access. is particularly ridiculous. That a newspaper puts this out is even more amazing. By this reasoning, freedom of the press should be really harmful. However, as open access moves into the political realm, the larger issue of jobs should not be dismissed cavalierly. When replacing a high-margin industry with a low-margin one, when increasing efficiency in the distribution by going open access, there will be job losses and job substitutions in the whole pipeline of information delivery. These costs of Open access do not invalidate the goals and the value of open access. The open access movement has sidestepped this issue by being rather pollyannaish. The message was simple: Everyone just keeps doing what they have always been doing. Just add Green Open Access to mix. Eventually, this will evolve the system in favor of openness. How this evolution was supposed to happen was always a bit foggy. As Open Access is closing in on its goals, reality will set in that there is no gradual, evolutionary path of disruption where the system remains in perfect equilibrium at every step of the way. One cannot disrupt without being disruptive. I do not think one can counter the jobs argument by simply denying it. Open access will destroy jobs initially, but it will also create jobs by making access to research free, which is particularly significant for start-up ventures. It may also lower the cost of education or, at least, help tame the educational rate of inflation. This will not be an easy argument to make to a skeptical public, which will be presented with misleading PR like the one in the Daily Mail article. --Eric. http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 Telephone: (626) 376-5415 Skype: efvandevelde -- Twitter: @evdvelde E-mail: eric.f.vandeve...@gmail.com On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.comwrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: CHARLES OPPENHEIM c.oppenh...@btinternet.com To: Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\) goal@eprints.org Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:31:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: Dreadful Daily Mail article on Open Access The author is the City/Economics Editor of Daily Mail I believe. That makes the lack of research and the taking of an unnamed organisation's statement as gospel truth all the more unacceptable. This would have been bad for a rookie journalist, but for a respected senior journalist, well, words fail me. http://m.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2160753/Open-access-puts-UK-jobs-risk.html Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim Prepare for more press distortions when the Finch Report is released tomorrow. We won't be able to counter it if we all run off in all directions. The essence of what we need to say to debunk Finch report (which is itself almost as distroted and biassed as the Daily Mail article!) is super-simple: 1. The Finch Report is a successful case of lobbying by publishers to protect the interests of publishing at the expense of the interests of research and the public that funds research. 2. The Finch Report proposes doing precisely what the US Research Works Act (RWA) -- since discredited and withdrawn -- failed to accomplish: to push the Green OA self-archiving and Green OA self-archiving mandates off the UK policy agenda as inadequate and ineffective and, too boot, likely to destroy both publishing and peer review -- and to replace them instead with a vague, slow evolution toward Gold OA publishing, at the publishers' pace and price. 3. The result would be very little OA, very slowly, and at a high Gold OA price, taken out of already scarce UK research funds, instead of the rapid and cost-free OA growth vouchsafed by Green OA mandates from funders and universities. 4. Both the loss in UK's Green OA mandate momentum and the expenditure of further funds to pay pre-emptively for Gold OA would be a major historic (and economic) set-back for the UK, which has until now been the worldwide leader in OA. The UK would
[GOAL] World Bank Announces Open Access Policy for Research and Knowledge
[Forwarding from the World Bank. --Peter Suber.] News Release 2012/379/EXTOP *World Bank Announces Open Access Policy for Research and Knowledge * *Launches Open Knowledge Repository* WASHINGTON, April 10, 2012 - The World Bank today announced that it will implement a new Open Access policy for its research outputs and knowledge products, effective July 1, 2012. The new policy builds on recent efforts to increase access to information at the World Bank and to make its research as widely available as possible. As the first phase of this policy, the Bank launched today a new Open Knowledge Repository and adopted a set of Creative Commons copyright licenses. The new Open Access policy, which will be rolled out in phases in the coming year, formalizes the Bank's practice of making research and knowledge freely available online. Now anybody is free to use, re-use and redistribute most of the Bank's knowledge products and research outputs for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Knowledge is power, World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick said. Making our knowledge widely and readily available will empower others to come up with solutions to the world's toughest problems. Our new Open Access policy is the natural evolution for a World Bank that is opening up more and more. The policy will also apply to Bank research published with third party publishers including the institution's two journals --World Bank Research Observer (WBRO) and World Bank Economic Review (WBER)-- which are published by Oxford University Press, but in accordance with the terms of third party publisher agreements. The Bank will respect publishing embargoes, but expects the amount of time it takes for externally published Bank content to be included in its institutional repository to diminish over time. In support of the new Open Access Policy, the World Bank is adopting a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) copyright license for content published by the Bank, the most accommodating of all licenses offered by Creative Commons. It allows anyone to distribute, reuse, and build upon the Bank's published work, even commercially, as long as the Bank is given credit for the original creation. The CC BY license helps the Bank to maximize its impact while simultaneously protecting the Bank's reputation and the integrity of its content. World Bank content published by third party publishers will be available in the Open Knowledge Repository under a more restrictive Creative Commons license. The new copyright practice goes into effect today. While much of the Bank's research outputs and knowledge products have been available for free on the institution's web site, and on other channels, the new Open Access policy marks a significant shift in how Bank content is disseminated and shared. For the first time, the Bank will have an aggregated portal to research and knowledge products, where the metadata is curated, the content is discoverable and easily downloaded, and third parties are free to use, reuse, and build on it. Allowing unfettered access to the Bank's trove of development knowledge is commendable, said Cathy Casserly, CEO of Creative Commons. For researchers, it increases the visibility, usage, and impact of their work. For users, it allows for the discovery of knowledge and encourages the open interchange of ideas. The Open Knowledge Repository, the centerpiece of the policy, is the new home for all of the World Bank's research outputs and knowledge products. The Repository -- available at openknowledge.worldbank.org -- currently contains works from 2009-2012 (more than 2,100 books and papers) across a wide range of topics and all regions of the world. This includes the World Development Report, and other annual flagship publications, academic books, practitioner volumes, and the Bank's publicly disclosed country studies and analytical reports. The repository also contains journal articles from 2007-2010 from the two World Bank journals WBRO and WBER. The repository will be updated regularly with new publications and research products, as well as with content published prior to 2009. Starting in 2013, the repository will also provide links to datasets associated with research. While the vast majority of the works are published in English, over time translated editions will also be added. The Open Knowledge Repository is interoperable with other repositories and will support optimal discoverability and re-usability of the content by complying with Dublin Core metadata standards and the Open Archives Initiatives protocol for metadata harvesting. This new policy is a natural extension of our other efforts to make the Bank more open, including the Open Data Initiative and the landmark Access to Information Policy, said Caroline Anstey, World Bank Managing Director. Anyone with Internet access will have much greater access to the World Bank's knowledge. And for those without internet access, there is now unlimited potential
[GOAL] World Bank Announces Open Access Policy for Research and Knowledge
[Forwarding from the World Bank.  --Peter Suber.] News Release 2012/379/EXTOP World Bank Announces Open Access Policy for Research and Knowledge Launches Open Knowledge Repository WASHINGTON, April 10, 2012 - The World Bank today announced that it will implement a new Open Access policy for its research outputs and knowledge products, effective July 1, 2012. The new policy builds on recent efforts to increase access to information at the World Bank and to make its research as widely available as possible. As the first phase of this policy, the Bank launched today a new Open Knowledge Repository and adopted a set of Creative Commons copyright licenses. The new Open Access policy, which will be rolled out in phases in the coming year, formalizes the Bank's practice of making research and knowledge freely available online. Now anybody is free to use, re-use and redistribute most of the Bank's knowledge products and research outputs for commercial or non-commercial purposes. Knowledge is power, World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick said. Making our knowledge widely and readily available will empower others to come up with solutions to the world's toughest problems. Our new Open Access policy is the natural evolution for a World Bank that is opening up more and more. The policy will also apply to Bank research published with third party publishers including the institution's two journals --World Bank Research Observer (WBRO) and World Bank Economic Review (WBER)-- which are published by Oxford University Press, but in accordance with the terms of third party publisher agreements. The Bank will respect publishing embargoes, but expects the amount of time it takes for externally published Bank content to be included in its institutional repository to diminish over time. In support of the new Open Access Policy, the World Bank is adopting a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) copyright license for content published by the Bank, the most accommodating of all licenses offered by Creative Commons. It allows anyone to distribute, reuse, and build upon the Bank's published work, even commercially, as long as the Bank is given credit for the original creation. The CC BY license helps the Bank to maximize its impact while simultaneously protecting the Bank's reputation and the integrity of its content. World Bank content published by third party publishers will be available in the Open Knowledge Repository under a more restrictive Creative Commons license. The new copyright practice goes into effect today. While much of the Bank's research outputs and knowledge products have been available for free on the institution's web site, and on other channels, the new Open Access policy marks a significant shift in how Bank content is disseminated and shared. For the first time, the Bank will have an aggregated portal to research and knowledge products, where the metadata is curated, the content is discoverable and easily downloaded, and third parties are free to use, reuse, and build on it. Allowing unfettered access to the Bank's trove of development knowledge is commendable, said Cathy Casserly, CEO of Creative Commons. For researchers, it increases the visibility, usage, and impact of their work. For users, it allows for the discovery of knowledge and encourages the open interchange of ideas. The Open Knowledge Repository, the centerpiece of the policy, is the new home for all of the World Bank's research outputs and knowledge products. The Repository -- available at openknowledge.worldbank.org -- currently contains works from 2009-2012 (more than 2,100 books and papers) across a wide range of topics and all regions of the world. This includes the World Development Report, and other annual flagship publications, academic books, practitioner volumes, and the Bank's publicly disclosed country studies and analytical reports. The repository also contains journal articles from 2007-2010 from the two World Bank journals WBRO and WBER. The repository will be updated regularly with new publications and research products, as well as with content published prior to 2009. Starting in 2013, the repository will also provide links to datasets associated with research. While the vast majority of the works are published in English, over time translated editions will also be added. The Open Knowledge Repository is interoperable with other repositories and will support optimal discoverability and re-usability of the content by complying with Dublin Core metadata standards and the Open Archives Initiatives protocol for metadata harvesting. This new policy is a natural extension of our other efforts to make the Bank more open, including the Open Data Initiative and the landmark Access to Information Policy, said Caroline Anstey, World Bank Managing Director. Anyone with Internet access will have much greater access to the World Bank's knowledge. And for those without internet access, there is now
[GOAL] Helping the Open Access Directory
* cross posted * *Helping the Open Access Directory?* The Open Access Directory http://oad.simmons.edu is looking for some volunteer help to answer occasional technical questions about the MediaWiki software. The OAD is a wiki-based compendium of simple factual lists about open access to research, launched in 2008 and maintained by the OA community at large. To date it has over 2.5 million unique views, and many of our technical questions will concern our growing pains. If you're interested, please reply offlist to Robin Peek robin.peek at simmons.edu and/or Peter Suber psuber at law.harvard.edu. Thanks, Peter Peter Suber gplus.to/petersuber -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120404/04b77bcc/attachment.html
[GOAL] Helping the Open Access Directory
* cross posted * Helping the Open Access Directory? The Open Access Directory http://oad.simmons.edu is looking for some volunteer help to answer occasional technical questions about the MediaWiki software. The OAD is a wiki-based compendium of simple factual lists about open access to research, launched in 2008 and maintained by the OA community at large. To date it has over 2.5 million unique views, and many of our technical questions will concern our growing pains. If you're interested, please reply offlist to Robin Peek robin.p...@simmons.edu and/or Peter Suber psu...@law.harvard.edu.    Thanks,    Peter Peter Suber gplus.to/petersuber [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] 24 New Co-sponsors Added to FRPAA!
[Forwarding from Heather Joseph. --Peter Suber.] Delighted to let you all know that fresh on the heels of yesterday?s well-attended Congressional briefing on public access, 24 new bipartisan co-sponsors have officially been added to the roster of supporters for FRPAA! The list reflects the incredibly broad - and growing! - nature of the support for the bill. Thanks to all of you who have already been in touch with your Representatives' office and asked them to co-sponsor; for those of you have not, let's keep this list growingyou can use the letters set up for this purpose at the Alliance for Taxpayer Access action center, at: http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/FRPAA2012.shtml The new co-sponsors join the bill?s original sponsors, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS). The full list is below. All best, Heather -- New FRPAA Co-sponsors -- Rep Blumenauer, Earlhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Blumenauer++Earl))+00099)) [D-OR] Rep Burton, Danhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Burton++Dan))+00154)) [R-IN] Rep Capuano, Michael E.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Capuano++Michael+E.))+01564)) [D-MA] Rep Carnahan, Russhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Carnahan++Russ))+01789)) [D-MO] Rep Cole, Tomhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Cole++Tom))+01742)) [R-OK] Rep Connolly, Gerald E. Gerryhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Connolly++Gerald+E.+Gerry))+01959)) [D-VA] Rep Costello, Jerry F.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Costello++Jerry+F.))+00238)) [D-IL] Rep Fleming, Johnhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Fleming++John))+01924)) [R-LA] Rep Flores, Billhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Flores++Bill))+02065)) [R-TX] Rep Franks, Trenthttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Franks++Trent))+01707)) [R-AZ] Rep Gohmert, Louiehttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Gohmert++Louie))+01801)) [R-TX] Rep Gowdy, Treyhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Gowdy++Trey))+02058)) [R-SC] Rep Holden, Timhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Holden++Tim))+00550)) [D-PA] Rep Kucinich, Dennis J.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Kucinich++Dennis+J.))+01499)) [D-OH] Rep Lofgren, Zoehttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Lofgren++Zoe))+00701)) [D-CA] Rep Manzullo, Donald A.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Manzullo++Donald+A.))+00733)) [R-IL] Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathyhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+McMorris+Rodgers++Cathy))+01809)) [R-WA] Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmeshttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Norton++Eleanor+Holmes))+00868)) [D-DC] Rep Paul, Ronhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Paul++Ron))+00900)) [R-TX] Rep Polis, Jaredhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Polis++Jared))+01910)) [D-CO] Rep Rothman, Steven R.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Rothman++Steven+R.))+01520)) [D-NJ] Rep Rush, Bobby L.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Rush++Bobby+L.))+01003)) [D-IL] Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbiehttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Wasserman+Schultz++Debbie))+01777)) [D-FL] Rep Waxman, Henry A.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?Db=d112querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+ at 4((@1(Rep+Waxman++Henry+A.))+01209)) [D-CA] Heather Joseph Executive Director, SPARC 21 Dupont Circle, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 +1 202 296 2296 heather at arl.org www.arl.org/sparc -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120320/ef67aab8/attachment.html
[GOAL] 24 New Co-sponsors Added to FRPAA!
[Forwarding from Heather Joseph.  --Peter Suber.] Delighted to let you all know that fresh on the heels of yesterdayâs well-attended Congressional briefing on public access, 24 new bipartisan co-sponsors have officially been added to the roster of supporters for FRPAA!  The list reflects the incredibly broad  - and growing! - nature of the support for the bill. Thanks to all of you who have already been in touch with your Representatives' office and asked them to co-sponsor; for those of you have not, let's keep this list growingyou can use the letters set up for this purpose at the Alliance for Taxpayer Access action center, at: http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/FRPAA2012.shtml The new co-sponsors  join the billâs original sponsors, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS).  The full list is below. All best, Heather -- New FRPAA Co-sponsors -- Rep Blumenauer, Earl [D-OR] Rep Burton, Dan [R-IN] ⨠Rep Capuano, Michael E. [D-MA] ⨠Rep Carnahan, Russ [D-MO] â¨â¨ Rep Cole, Tom [R-OK] ⨠Rep Connolly, Gerald E. Gerry [D-VA] Rep Costello, Jerry F. [D-IL] ⨠Rep Fleming, John [R-LA] ⨠Rep Flores, Bill [R-TX] ⨠Rep Franks, Trent [R-AZ] ⨠Rep Gohmert, Louie [R-TX] ⨠Rep Gowdy, Trey [R-SC] ⨠Rep Holden, Tim [D-PA] ⨠Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [D-OH] Rep Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA] ⨠Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [R-IL] ⨠Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA] ⨠Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC] ⨠Rep Paul, Ron [R-TX] ⨠Rep Polis, Jared [D-CO] ⨠Rep Rothman, Steven R. [D-NJ] ⨠Rep Rush, Bobby L. [D-IL] ⨠Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL] Rep Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA] ⨠Heather Joseph Executive Director, SPARC 21 Dupont Circle, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 +1 202 296 2296 heat...@arl.org www.arl.org/sparc [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Public comments on the RCUK's draft new OA policy
The Research Councils UK are seeking public comments on their draft new OA policy. http://www.openscholarship.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/rcuk_propose d_policy_on_access_to_research_outputs.pdf Please send any comments to communicati...@rcuk.ac.uk and use Open Access Feedback in the subject line.    Peter Peter Suber Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Senior Researcher, SPARC gplus.to/petersuber [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Rockefeller University Press director opposes RWA
[Forwarding from Mike Rossner, Executive Director of Rockefeller University Press.  --Peter Suber.] January 13, 2012  Representative Carolyn Maloney 2332 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515-3214  Dear Representative Maloney,  I am the Executive Director of The Rockefeller University Press, a nonprofit organization that publishes three biomedical research journals. I am contacting you as a publisher and as your constituent in the 14th Congressional District of New York to express my strong opposition to the Research Works Act (H.R. 3699), which you and Representative Issa introduced into the House on December 16, 2011.  I want to state emphatically that I support the NIH Public Access Policy and think it should be expanded to other federal funding agencies. All publishers of biomedical research understand several truths: 1) that their content is generated in large part through federally funded research, 2) that the peer review process is carried out in large part by federally funded individuals, and 3) that a significant portion of their subscription revenue is obtained from government funded institutions. Although publishers' content may technically be considered private-sector research work as described in the text of H.R. 3699, its very existence depends on public funding.  Some publishers believe they have an obligation to give back to the public that has provided those funds, and, even before the NIH mandate, they made their online content free after a short delay under subscription control. However, a few large, highly profitable publishers refused to do this voluntarily and thus forced the NIH into the position of mandating deposition of NIH-funded research publications in PubMed Central to make them available to the public.  At The Rockefeller University Press, we have released the content of our three journals to the public six months after publication since January, 2001, and our subscription revenues have grown since then. All of the content in our journals is released to the public, regardless of funding source. We are not aware of any data indicating that subscription revenues of biomedical research journal publishers have been directly and negatively affected by the NIH mandate.  Enacting a law that prohibits federal funding agencies from mandating public access to the results of the research they fund will deprive the public of important information that is rightly theirs. Although this Act has been supported by the Association of American Publishers (AAP), it is vital that members of Congress know that not all members of this Association agree with their position. The Rockefeller University Press is a member of the AAP, but we strongly oppose H.R. 3699. Yours sincerely, Mike Rossner, Ph.D. Executive Director The Rockefeller University Press  These comments are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Rockefeller University. [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] MIT Press does not support Research Works Act
Ellen Faran, Director of the MIT Press, has given me permission to share the following statement: The AAP's press release on the Research Works Act does not reflect the position of the MIT Press; nor, I imagine, the position of many other scholarly presses whose mission is centrally focused on broad dissemination. We will not, however, withdraw from the AAP on this issue as we value the Associationâs work overall and the opportunity to participate as a member of the larger and diverse publishing community. Comment: I believe MIT Press is the first AAP-member press to disavow the AAP position on the Research Works Act. Kudos and profound thanks to Ellen Faran and MIT Press for their leadership on this issue. Peter Suber Director, Harvard Open Access Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Senior Researcher, SPARC gplus.to/petersuber [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Fwd: Harvard response to the White House RFI on OA to publicly funded research
Hi Steve:  I'm blogging about the new anti-OA bill at Google+.  Please join the conversation and spread the word.https://plus.google.com/u/0/109377556796183035206/posts/QYAH1jSJG6L    Peter Peter Suber Director, Harvard Open Access Project Faculty Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet Society Senior Researcher, SPARC gplus.to/petersuber On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Steve Hitchcock sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: We must be grateful for Alan M. Garber's extensive and detailed submission for Harvard to the White House RFI on OA to US federally funded research. There appear to be counter moves. Garber refers to Some publishers have gone to the legislature, and backed the so-called Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (H.R. 6845 in the 110th Congress and H.R. 801 in the 111th Congress), which would amend U.S. copyright law precisely to block the NIH policy and to prevent other federal agencies from following its lead. I'm not familiar with the process of US legislation, but the current focus for publishers appears to be H.R.3699 Latest Title: Research Works Act Sponsor: Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] (introduced 12/16/2011) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3699: This is the response of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) Publishers Applaud âResearch Works Act,â Bipartisan Legislation To End Government Mandates on Private-Sector Scholarly Publishing (23 Dec 2011) http://www.publishers.org/press/56/ Can anyone explain the implications of these different legislative approaches, the White House RFI and H.R.3699, and how OA supporters should respond? Steve [...] [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Open Access Directory opens for Open Access Week event details
The Open Access Directory (OAD) is pleased to announce that it will once again serve as a comprehensive source of information about events celebrating Open Access Week (OAW).  This year's OAW is coming fast -- October 18-24, 2010. Because OAD is a wiki, event organizers can enter their details directly.  If you're planning an OAW event, please describe it on the wiki and help us spread the word about your event.  http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Events_celebrating_Open_Access_Week OAD is working with the SPARC-organized OAW site at Ning.  If you've posted a message about your event at the SPARC site, you can provide full details at OAD.  If you post your details at OAD, you can also publicize your event through the SPARC site. http://www.openaccessweek.org/ * About the Open Access Directory The Open Access Directory (OAD) is a compendium of simple factual lists about open access (OA) to science and scholarship, maintained by the OA community at large.  By bringing many OA-related lists together in one place, OAD makes it easier for everyone to discover them, use them for reference, and update them. The easier they are to maintain and discover, the more effectively they can spread useful, accurate information about OA. The OAD is hosted by the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at Simmons College and supervised by an independent editorial board. OAD contributors must register before they edit, but registration is free and easy. We are also thrilled to report that this summer OAD passed the milestone of one million visitors.  Thank you everyone for your support. Robin Peek and Peter Suber, co-founders of OAD http://oad.simmons.eduÂ
Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition
Hi Les:  You're arguing that Webometrics should count PDFs, and I fully agree.  I was only arguing that Webometrics should not *limit* its count to PDFs.  Sorry if I didn't make that clear. BTW, I'd make the analogous case to publishers.  Publish in PDF if you like, but never publish in PDF-only.  If you offer PDF editions, then also offer XML or HTML editions.    Best,    Peter Peter Suber www.bit.ly/suber -- On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Leslie Carr l...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: On 10 Jul 2010, at 15:37, Peter Suber wrote: For more detail on rich media or rich files, see the Webometrics page on methodology:  Only the number of text files in Acrobat format (.pdf) ... are consideredThis is a bug, not a feature.  A more useful ranking would try to count full-text scholarly or peer-reviewed articles regardless of format.  I know that's hard to do.  But it's a mistake to use any format as a surrogate for that status, and especially a format as flawed as PDF. Even if Webometrics wanted to reward some formats more than others, it should not reward PDF. I think it should. The overwhelming majority of academic papers are distributed online as PDF; the overwhelming majority of things in repositories that are not PDF are not academic papers. The format is optimized for print or reading, not for use or reuse.  PDFs are slow to load and often not even readable in bandwidth-poor parts of the world.  They crash many browsers.  They often lack working links; when they do have links, they require users to open in the same window rather than in a separate window, losing the file that took so long to load.  Users can't deep-link to subsections.  Publishers can lock them to prevent cutting and pasting.  Publishers can insert scripts to make them unreadable offline or after a certain time.  PDFs impede text processing by users, text mining by software, handicapped access (read-aloud software), and mark-up by third parties. This is an argument about what software/data formats researchers *should* use; affecting their authoring and editorial processes is probably beyond the scope of what we can expect from this league table. PubMed Central scores low in the Webometric rankings because it has no PDFs. It does have PDFs - it might ingest articles in XML, but it certainly exports them in PDF. Enquiring of Google (site:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov filetype:pdf) shows that it has about 6,690,000 PDFs. But PMC is one of the most populated and useful OA repositories in the world. This is something that needs investigating. If I had to guess why it ranks so low, it might be because no-one is linking INTO pubmed; rather they are linking to the original publishers. The format it uses instead of PDF, the NLM DTD coded in XML, is vastly superior to PDF for every scholarly purpose. I haven't had time to code my articles in XML.  But since even HTML is superior to PDF for purposes of access and reuse, I self-archive in HTML rather than PDF whenever I can. For the record, I completely agree with you about PDF / HTML / XHTML. If only Microsoft Word (and LaTeX) had decent export facilities that produced good semantic HTML. -- Les Carr
Re: Ranking Web of Repositories: July 2010 Edition
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Leslie Carr l...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: [...] If you assume that a repository is full of locally-authored research literature then you will find all sorts of counter-examples in one area or another. The Rich Media criterion goes some way to filtering out non-documents, but whether the items are scholarly or local or equivalent to those in other repositories is very difficult to ascertain. For more detail on rich media or rich files, see the Webometrics page on methodology: Â Only the number of text files in Acrobat format (.pdf) ... are considered. http://repositories.webometrics.info/methodology_rep.html This is a bug, not a feature. Â A more useful ranking would try to count full-text scholarly or peer-reviewed articles regardless of format. Â I know that's hard to do. Â But it's a mistake to use any format as a surrogate for that status, and especially a format as flawed as PDF. Even if Webometrics wanted to reward some formats more than others, it should not reward PDF. Â The format is optimized for print or reading, not for use or reuse. Â PDFs are slow to load and often not even readable in bandwidth-poor parts of the world. Â They crash many browsers. Â They often lack working links; when they do have links, they require users to open in the same window rather than in a separate window, losing the file that took so long to load. Â Users can't deep-link to subsections. Â Publishers can lock them to prevent cutting and pasting. Â Publishers can insert scripts to make them unreadable offline or after a certain time. Â PDFs impede text processing by users, text mining by software, handicapped access (read-aloud software), and mark-up by third parties. Â PubMed Central scores low in the Webometric rankings because it has no PDFs. Â But PMC is one of the most populated and useful OA repositories in the world. Â The format it uses instead of PDF, the NLM DTD coded in XML, is vastly superior to PDF for every scholarly purpose. I haven't had time to code my articles in XML. Â But since even HTML is superior to PDF for purposes of access and reuse, I self-archive in HTML rather than PDF whenever I can. Â Â Â Peter Peter Suber www.bit.ly/suber
OA mandate from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research
[Forwarding from the US National Center for Atmospheric Research. --Peter Suber.] New Open Access Policy for NCAR Research Boulder, Colorado - The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has passed an Open Access policy that requires that all peer-reviewed research published by its scientists and staff in scientific journals be made publicly available online through its institutional repository. The new policy has been put in place by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), the governing body that manages NCAR. A national lab, NCAR is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. It has conducted research into the atmospheric sciences since 1960. UCAR last month formalized the new policy and is developing an institutional repository known as OpenSky, which will include all published studies by NCAR and UCAR researchers in scientific journals. The repository will be free and available to the public, but access to the works it contains will depend upon the policies of their publishers. In support of copyright law and the health of the publishers that support NCAR and UCAR science, all publishing agreements will be honored. OpenSky will be managed by the NCAR Library and is expected to go live in 2010. This updated policy will support broader access to the cutting-edge research conducted at NCAR, covering climate, weather, air quality, and other areas vital to society and the environment, says Mary Marlino, the Director of the NCAR Library. It is especially timely because it comes at a critical time for atmospheric science research. I can think of no better way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of NCAR than to formalize our longstanding commitment to open science, open access, and open data. Marlino adds, The policy that we have developed respects the policies that publishers self-set, and it is our intention to continue to honor publisher policy, while at the same time, to monitor developments in this fast evolving arena. UCAR is a nonprofit corporation formed in 1959 by research institutions with doctoral programs in the atmospheric and related sciences. UCAR was formed to enhance the computing and observational capabilities of the universities and to focus on scientific problems that are beyond the scale of a single university. NCAR supports the UCAR mission by providing the university science and teaching community with the tools, facilities, and support required to perform innovative research. For more information, visit http://opensky.library.ucar.edu/policy, or contact Jamaica Jones, jama...@ucar.edu. The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I agree with Alma, Tony, Mike, and others. This list depends on Stevan's energy and dedication, and would be much less valuable without them. Peter Suber At 11:08 AM 10/7/2008, you wrote: I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM I absolutely agree with Michael - the list would die without Stevan Tony -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [ mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org ] On Behalf Of Michael Eisen Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:26 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I disagree with Stevan often. He can be infuriating. He has a tendency to bloviate. Nonetheless - he has been a FANTASTIC moderator of this list. I have sent off many posts that have criticized Stevan directly, and he has never failed to send them to the group. I can think of no other list that has not just lasted for 10 years, but kept up a high level of discourse and relevance. Stevan has my complete confidence. The list would die without him. [...]
January issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
* Announcement (cross-posted) * I just mailed the January issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. This issue takes a close look at the long-sought Congressional victory mandating OA at the NIH. It also contains my annual look back at OA developments from the previous year. The round-up section briefly notes 85 OA developments from December. January issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-08.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum. http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan The current and back issues are all open access, of course. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter -- Peter Suber Senior Researcher, SPARC Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Author, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
September issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
* Announcement (cross-posted) * I just mailed the September issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. This issue takes a close look at the common objection from publisher trade associations and lobbyists that OA mandates will undermine peer review. The round-up section briefly notes 66 OA developments from August. September issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-07.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum. http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan The current and back issues are all open access, of course. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter -- Peter Suber Senior Researcher, SPARC Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Author, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
July issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
* Announcement (cross-posted) * I just mailed the July issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. This issue takes a close look at the draft open-access policy from the RCUK and ways make open-access literature more visible than it already is. It also updates last month's report on journal policies toward NIH-funded authors. The Top Stories section takes a brief look at the new Swan-Brown study of self-archiving, the OA Law Program from Science Commons, the rising impact factors at BMC and PLoS, a raft of new resolutions endorsing OA, and the House of Representatives support for PubChem against the lobbying of the American Chemical Society. July issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/07-02-05.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html The archive of back issues is open to non-subscribers http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter -- Peter Suber Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
Re: PNAS policy on NIH-funded authors
Stevan has misread my blog posting. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_04_03_fosblogarchive.html#a111279844149784380 I wasn't talking about the PNAS policy on self-archiving in institutional repositories but the PNAS policy on depositing to PubMed Central as part of the NIH public-access policy. PNAS is telling its authors that they may not authorize PubMed Central to release their work earlier than six months after publication unless they pay the PNAS processing fee. This does not affect the PNAS self-archiving policy, and indeed, I encourage PNAS authors (with or without NIH funding) to self-archive their articles in their institutional repositories immediately upon publication. Peter Peter Suber Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu At 04:42 PM 4/6/2005, you wrote: I believe that Peter Suber may have made an inadvertent but rather fundamental misinterpretation below. He infers that PNAS does not allow public self-archiving by the author until six months after publication except if the author plays the publication fee, but this is incorrect: PNAS is one of the 92% of journals that have given their authors the green light for *immediate* self-archiving upon publication (i.e., making *publicly accessible immediately*): http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php (80% of them full-green for the final refereed draft -- the postprint -- 12% pale-green for the pre-acceptance preprint: PNAS is among the 80% postprint full-green journals). [...]
December issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
* Announcement [cross-posted] * I just mailed the December issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. In addition to the usual round-up of news from the past month, it takes a close look at the Congressional approval of the NIH public access plan and the UK government response to the open-access recommendations from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Among the news stories given shorter takes are a series of national OA initiatives launched in November, the Kaufman-Wills study of open-access journals, and Google Scholar. December issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/12-02-04.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html The archive of back issues is open to non-subscribers http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter -- Peter Suber Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
Re: Victory for the NIH open access plan in the House
[Forwarding from ARL and SPARC. --Peter Suber.] FROM: Prue Adler, ARL and Rick Johnson, SPARC RE: Congress Reaffirms Support for NIH Proposal to Enhance Public Access to Research Information We are delighted to report that Congress again affirmed its support for NIH to enhance public access to NIH funded research information. This support was expressed via language in the Conference Report accompanying the FY 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 4818, H Rept 108-792), legislation that includes nine appropriations bills. The conference report language restates the NIH proposed policy of making research articles based on NIH funding available to the public free of charge. These articles would be publicly available via in PubMed Central within six months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The language also requests that NIH provide an annual cost accounting for implementing this policy as well as work with publishers of scientific journals to maintain the integrity of the peer review system. The text is included below and is available via Thomas (page 104 of the Statement of the Managers). The report will also be available in the Congressional Records in the next day or two. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your letters and efforts in support of the NIH policy. Clearly this support made the difference in moving this important policy forward! NIH is working on an implementation plan for this policy. We will forward that to you once available. Our thanks again. It is greatly appreciated. --- FY05 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report (NIH, Office of Director, excerpted from the Statement of the Managers) The conferees are aware of the draft NIH policy on increasing public access to NIH-funded research. Under this policy, NIH would request investigators to voluntarily submit electronically the final, peer reviewed author's copy of their scientific manuscripts; six months after the publisher's date of publication, NIH would make this copy publicly available through PubMed Central. The policy is intended to help ensure the permanent preservation of NIH-funded research and make it more readily accessible to scientists, physicians, and the public. The conferees note the comment period for the draft policy ended November 16th; NIH is directed to give full and fair consideration to all comments before publishing its final policy. The conferees request NIH to provide the estimated costs of implementing this policy each year in its annual Justification of Estimates to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In addition, the conferees direct NIH to continue to work with the publishers of scientific journals to maintain the integrity of the peer review system.
Re: Evolving Publisher Copyright Policies On Self-Archiving
At 06:15 PM 11/3/2004 +, you wrote: This posting is re-directed from the thread: Re: Open Access and ISI-indexed journals and articles http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4106.html Pertinent Prior Amsci Topic Threads: Evolving Publisher Copyright Policies On Self-Archiving (2002) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2350.html Legal ways around copyright for one's own giveaway texts (2000) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0541.html On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Stevan Harnad wrote: (4a) If the journal is gray (8%), self-archive preprint + corrigenda and inform the journal. (4b) If the journal responds to (4a) with an objection, negotiate or remove. (Peter [Suber], if my memory does not fail me, you too have recommended something along the lines of 4a/4b: Is there a URL?) Peter Suber has since replied that he recalls blogging something to that effect in Open Access News (but cannot retrieve the URL) and Alma Swan has written that she remembers a similar proposal in a Dutch institutional self-archiving initiative (but she likewise cannot retrieve the URL) (SURF/DARE?). I've since found the blog posting that Stevan mentions. It's apparently the same news that Alma Swan recalls. Here's the posting from Open Access News, April 6, 2004. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_04_04_fosblogarchive.html#a108126147329143935 Tilburg University has added a very nice feature http://kubl03.uvt.nl:4090/?request=comadomain=Coma to its institutional repository. When a journal does not permit postprint archiving, then the repository still includes a record containing a citation and a link to the publisher's priced or for-fee edition. The record also contains an explanation of the publisher's policy, quoting and dating the publisher's own words if possible. With one click, the author can generate a letter to the publisher asking permission to deposit the postprint in the repository. Backend software automatically addresses the letter to the right human contact at the publisher and provides a full citation to the article. The letter concludes, If I do not hear from you within thirty days I will assume that you have no objections to the above-mentioned request and the electronic copy will then be included in the institutional repository of the University of Tilburg. See this example http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_04_04_fosblogarchive.html#a108126147329143935. Leo Waaijers of Tilburg reminds us that the site is still under construction. Peter -- Peter Suber Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
Victory for the NIH open access plan in the House
If the Open Access News blog is so full of news these days that you can't read every item, then let me draw special attention to this one from yesterday: Victory for the NIH plan in the House By an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 388-13 the House of Representatives tonight adopted the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies (H.R. 5006). The bill includes the directive to the NIH to develop an open-access plan by December 1, 2004. On to the Senate! H.R. 5006 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.05006 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.05006 : (the final colon is part of the URL) Section containing the directive to NIH http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?db_id=cp108r_n=hr636.108sel=T OC_338641 db_id=cp108r_n=hr636.108sel=TOC_338641 (the final ampersand is part of the URL) Open Access News http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html Peter
Southampton scientists welcome Parliamentary report on academic publishing
[Forwarding from the University of Southampton. --Peter.] 20 July 2004 Southampton scientists welcome Parliamentary report on academic publishing Researchers at the University of Southampton's School of Electronics and Computer Science have welcomed the conclusions of the report into the future of academic publishing conducted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, and published today. The Committee has recommended that all researchers should self-archive their papers within a month of publication, and that universities should be funded to provide the facilities to allow them to do this. This fulfils the vision and principles under which the ECS scientists have been working, as part of the Open Access movement. 'The Committee's conclusions, if followed by universities in this country, will improve the visibility and impact of UK research,' says Dr Les Carr, who has been leading the digital archiving research at ECS. ECS researchers have been at the forefront of the Open Access movement, promoting and demonstrating the benefits of Open Access archiving of research output, as well as developing software to allow institutions to easily set up their own archives (software.eprints.org). Their work has been funded by JISC (the Joint Information Systems Committee) and has been instrumental in advancing the Open Access debate. 'In a move two years ago that prefigured the conclusions of the parliamentary report, it was made mandatory for our own researchers in the School of Electronics and Computer Science to self-archive all their research papers, resulting in the most populated institutional archive in the UK (www.eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk),' said Dr Carr. 'This has provided a very positive and personal example to us of the benefits that can derive from Open Access. Everyone wants to see their research papers reaching as wide an audience as possible and Open Access provides the best way to achieve this.' Notes for Editors 1. Further information on Open Access and the digital libraries project is available at: http://www.eprints.org 2. Professor Stevan Harnad, regarded by many as the founder of the Open Access movement, has been successfully leading the debate from the School of Electronics and Computer Science over a number of years, and has argued forcefully for its adoption by the academic community worldwide. 3. The School of Electronics and Computer Science at Southampton carries out world-leading research in electronics, electrical engineering, and computer science. 4. The University of Southampton is a leading UK teaching and research institution with a global reputation for pioneering research and scholarship. The University has over 19,200 students and 4800 staff and plays an important role in the City of Southampton. Its annual turnover is in the region of £250 million. For further information Dr Les Carr, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton (tel.023 8059 4479; 07759 175921 (mobile); email l...@ecs.soton.ac.uk) Joyce Lewis, Communications Manager, School of Electronics and Computer Science (tel.023 8059 5453; email j.k.le...@ecs.soton.ac.uk) This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to The SPARC Open Access Forum. To post, send your message to sparc-oafo...@arl.org. To unsubscribe, email to sparc-oaforum-...@arl.org. To switch to digest mode, email to sparc-oaforum-dig...@arl.org. To switch to index mode, email to sparc-oaforum-in...@arl.org. Send administrative queries to sparc-oaforum-requ...@arl.org.
Another major Australian OA initiative
From Open Access News Blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_07_04_fosblogarchive.html#a108908328421964239 Another major Australian OA initiative Australia's National Scholarly Communications Forum (NSCF) http://www.humanities.org.au/NSCF/overview.htm and Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) http://www.dest.gov.au/ will work together to widen access to scholarly communication in three ways: 1. the encouragement of institutional/subject repositories, including the adoption of university-wide policies to collect and archive institutional research output, for example in connection with RAE exercises; 2. the adoption of further open access mechanisms, such as open access journals and not-for-profit electronic publishing. Best practice to reflect established mechanisms, such as peer review but adopting flexible criteria within the digital environment for evaluation in relation to promotion and tenure; and 3. collaboration with relevant international bodies, such as the Wellcome Trust, the Max Planck Institute, OECD, UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and the Open Society Institute (OSI), on global open access initiatives. For details, see Malcolm Gillies and Colin Steele, Outcomes of the Round Table on Changing Research Practices in the Digital Information and Communication Environment, NSCF, June 1, 2004, http://www.humanities.org.au/NSCF/NSCF%20Outcomes%20Final.pdf a report of the outcomes of the conference, Changing Research Practices in the Digital Information and Communication Environment (Canberra, June 1, 2004). http://www.humanities.org.au/NSCF/current.htm
Re: The Special Case of Law Reviews
AmSci Subject Thread: The Special Case of Law Reviews (Nov., 2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3192.html Forwarding from Dan Hunter of the Wharton School. If you remember back to November 2003, Dan wrote an open letter to the California Law Review (CLR) asking it to reconsider its OA archiving policy. The letter led CLR to reconsider its policy and then, in late March, to change it. The open letter is online here https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/306.html. Thanks to Dan for his good work and kudos to CLR for adopting this helpful policy. Peter --cut here-- From: Jean Galbraith jeang AT uclink.berkeley.edu List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: March 31, 2004 5:04:34 PM EST To: hunterd AT wharton.upenn.edu Subject: CLR's electronic posting policy Dear Professor Hunter, I'm writing to follow up on our exchange last fall about the California Law Review's SSRN posting policy. After soliciting substantial input from the Boalt faculty and other parties, CLR's Board of Directors has decided to implement a new, experimental policy for next year's volume. CLR's contract will still require authors to remove working drafts from SSRN Social Science Research Network http://www.ssrn.com/ ] upon publication in the California Law Review. However, upon publication, CLR will also provide authors with .pdfs of their articles in their final worded forms and give authors the right to post these .pdfs on SSRN. The .pdfs may remain up indefinitely, so long as they and SSRN's search engines remain free and accessible to the general public. This policy will preserve CLR's interest in ensuring that, after publication, readers access CLR-edited versions rather than earlier drafts, while enabling authors to maintain uninterrupted posting on SSRN. This policy does involve financial risk -- and a corresponding risk to CLR's historic independence -- and for now it is an experiment, one our Board will monitor and modify, if necessary, for later volumes. If you have more thoughts or questions, please let me know. Jean Galbraith Editor-in-Chief California Law Review jeang AT boalthall.berkeley.edu
Re: Directory of Open Access Journals
[Forwarding from Lund University. --Peter.] Lund University Libraries Head Office Director of Libraries Lars Björnshauge Lund, June 3rd 2004 For immediate release LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES LAUNCHES PHASE 2 Of THE DIRECTORY OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS - NOW WITH ARTICLE LEVEL SEARCH Lund, Sweden - Lund University Libraries today launches the phase 2 of the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ, http://www.doaj.org). The new version of DOAJ now includes records at article level and a search functionality allowing users to search articles in potentially all Open Access Journals. The directory now contains information about more than 1100 open access journals, i.e. quality controlled scientific and scholarly electronic journals that are freely available on the web. As of today 270 of the 1100 journals are searchable on article level and both numbers are growing. Researchers can now search almost 46.000 articles through the Directory of Open Access Journals and be sure to get access to the articles. As a dynamic inventory of open-access journals, DOAJ has already succeeded in demonstrating the broad and growing adoption of open access and has enabled libraries to systematically present open-access journals to their users, said Rick Johnson, director of SPARC. Now, by adding article-level records, DOAJ is taking an important next step that will further expand use of articles published in open-access journals. SPARC is proud to support this ground-breaking work. The DOAJ provides a platform for open access journals to gain greater visibility and thereby increase their readership said Melissa Hagemann, Program Manager, Open Society Institute. Libraries throughout the world have thus far been able to add 1,100 peer-reviewed titles to their collections, and no where is this more important than to libraries in the developing world, where access to journals is limited due to the high cost of most titles. With today's launch of phase 2 of the Directory, researchers will now be able to search, and have direct access to, the thousands of articles included within the DOAJ. OSI is pleased to partner w/Lund University Libraries and SPARC on this innovative project. With this new article level search functionality we have created an incentive for owners of Open Access journals to submit article level data to the DOAJ in order to further increase the visibility, reputation and impact of their journals, said Lotte Jorgensen, Project Coordinator for the DOAJ. The goal of the Directory of Open Access Journals is to increase the visibility and accessibility of open access scholarly journals, thereby promoting their increased usage and impact. The directory aims to comprehensively cover all open access scholarly journals that use an appropriate quality control system. The DOAJ is funded by the Information Program of the Open Society Institute (http://www.osi.hu/infoprogram/) and Lund University Libraries, and supported by SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, (http://www.arl.org/sparc) and BIBSAM (the Royal Library of Sweden). Information about how to obtain DOAJ records for use in a library catalogue or other service you will find at: http://www.doaj.org/articles/questions#metadata. The database records are freely available for reuse in other services and can be harvested by using the OAI-PMH (http://www.openarchives.org/), thus further increasing the visibility of the journals. The article level records will be available for harvesting within 2 months. Further information: contact Project Coordinator Lotte Jorgensen - lotte.jorgen...@lub.lu.se or Director of Libraries Lars Björnshauge - lars.bjornsha...@lub.lu.se.
Re: India Open Access Workshops: Press Release
[Forwarding from Subbiah Arunachalam. --Peter.] Workshops on Open Access in India Two workshops on open access and institutional archives were organized by Subbiah Arunachalam at the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, during 2-4 and 6-8 May 2004, with a view to developing a cadre of open access experts in Indian higher educational and research institutions. The primary purpose of the workshops was to provide Indian scientists and librarians with (a) a thorough understanding of the global scientific and scholarly communication issues that Open Access addresses, (b) the technical knowledge of how to set up and maintain an Open Access institutional archive, and (c) an awareness of the local institutional policy and organisational requirements for a successful, sustainable Open Access institutional archive. In all, 48 participants, representing general and agricultural universities and government laboratories under the various councils and departments, were trained in the two workshops. Some of them were scientists and others librarians, drawn from different parts of India and from different disciplines. There were four faculty members: Leslie Chan of the University of Toronto, Leslie Carr of the University of Southampton, D K Sahu of MedKow Publications, Mumbai, and T B Rajashekar of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Incidentally, Leslie Chan was a resource person and Sahu a participant at the workshops on Open Access Electronic Journals that Subbiah Arunachalm organised two years ago at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. In the intervening two years Sahu had brought 20 Indian medical journals into the open access domain. The workshops were held in a multipurpose classroom where each participant was provided with an Internet-connected PC preloaded with Linux (RedHat 7.3). Apart from discussing the philosophy of open access and the current international developments, the faculty members helped the participants learn to set up interoperable institutional open access archives using the Eprints software developed at the University of Southampton and the Open Archives Initiative's Interoperability protocol. Participants were asked to load papers from their own institutions and prepare the metadata. Among the issues discussed at the workshop are: Who is responsible for setting up IR? How can we promote participation at the institutional level? What should be the institutional and national policies? Should they be concerned about copyright? Which journals allow authors to archive their papers? What are the long-term sustainability issues? Why open archives? All scientists, including social scientists, need to publish their findings. Indeed, research is incomplete as long as it remains unpublished. As John Ziman called it, science is public knowledge. The last few years have witnessed the unprecedented rise in the subscription costs of journals and even well-endowed institutions in rich countries find it difficult to retain journal subscriptions. It is for this reason that the open access (OA) movement is gaining ground around the world. While access to (and impact of) the peer-reviewed literature is a global issue, the impact of Indian research is of particular concern to Indian scientists and policy makers who feel that it receives less representation than it deserves in international journals. Besides, others in the rest of the world do not really notice much of the work that is carried out in India. If Indian scientists publish their papers in expensive journals, then even other Indian scientists do not notice them, as not many Indian institutions may subscribe to those journals. OA will improve access to Indian research and hence help to maximize its use, recognition (and citation) by researchers across the world. Indeed, OA will be of much greater advantage to developing countries than to the western countries. Institutional archiving is now widely seen as an immediate and low barrier route for providing open access to an institution's research output. The time is also ripe as there are now international standards for achieving interoperability between archives, and free software for setting up archives are readily available. We preferred Eprints.org as it is designed to gather and display metadata that are better suited for formal scholarly publications. Today there is great interest in open access around the world. The Budapest Open Access Initiatives, the Berlin Declaration, the Welcome Trust's statement on open access and the Declaration of Principles by the World Summit on the Information Society are prominent examples of the growing recognition of the importance of open access. In the USA, Congressman Martin Sabo has introduced a bill suggesting that findings of all publicly funded research must be made freely available to all. In the UK, a committee appointed by the House of Commons to inquire current and potentially useful practices in science publishing is
Workshop on Open Access
M S SWAMINATHAN RESEARCH FOUNDATION Third Cross Street, Taramani Instituional Area, Chennai 600 113 Tel: 044 2254 1229, 2254 2791 Fax: 044 2254 1319 Workshop on Open Access Overview All scientists need to publish their findings. Indeed, research is incomplete as long as it remains unpublished. The last few years have witnessed the unprecedented rise in the subscription costs of journals and even well-endowed institutions in rich countries find it difficult to retain journal subscriptions. The situation in developing countries like India is even worse. Besides, others in the rest of the world do not really read much of the work that we do in India. What is more, if our scientists publish their papers in expensive journals, then even other Indian scientists do not read them, as not many Indian institutions may subscribe to those journals. It is for this reason that the open access (OA) movement is gaining ground around the world - both in the advanced countries and in the developing countries. Indeed, OA will be of much greater advantage to India than to the western countries. Physicists have been placing their preprints and postprints for well over 13 years in a centralized archive called arXiv, which has more than 15 mirror sites including one located in India (Matscience, Chennai). There are several other centralized archives such as Cogprints (for cognitive sciences), CiteSeer (for computer science) and RePEc (for economics). Currently, institutional archives are favoured, as they work to satisfy the felt needs of both individual scientists and their institutions. There are at least three sets of software available, all of them free, to set up such interoperable institutional archives. This workshop aims to help Indian scientists (representing general and agricultural universities and government laboratories under the various councils and departments) to acquire the skills necessary to be able to set up and maintain institutional open archives. This workshop will provide training in Eprints software developed at the University of Southampton and the Open Archives Interoperability protocol. There is great interest in open access around the world. In the USA, Congressman Martin Sabo has introduced a bill suggesting that findings of all publicly funded research must be made freely available to all. In the UK, the Parliament has appointed a committee to inquire current and potentially useful practices in science publishing. Several discussion lists are actively promoting exchange of views on open access. The Budapest Open Access Initiative is providing funds to promote open access initiatives. In India, INSA devoted a whole day for a seminar on open access at its annual meeting held at NCL, Pune, in late December 2003. Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, held two workshops on open access journals in March 2002. The Workshop On a suggestion from Prof. M S Valiathan, President of the Indian National Science Academy, the Bioinformatics Centre of the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation will be holding two identical three-day workshops with a view to developing a cadre of open access experts in Indian higher educational institutions and government laboratories. We expect that before the end of the year at least a dozen institutions will have their own institutional archives up and running. There will be 20-24 participants in each workshop. Each participant and the faculty will have an Internet-connected computer on his/her desk. Dates: 2-4 May 2004 and 6-8 May 2004 Venue: M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Sambasivan Auditorium The Faculty: The workshop will be conducted by the following four experts, known for their commitment to promoting this technology worldwide: Prof. Leslie Chan of the University of Toronto and Bioline International, Dr Leslie Carr of the University of Southampton, Dr D K Sahu of MedKnow Publications, Mumbai, and Dr T B Rajashekar of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. All of them have considerable hands-on experience in open access. Participants: Higher educational institutions and government research laboratories (under the different Councils and Departments) may nominate candidates in the prescribed form. [Heads of these institutions may kindly ensure that an institutional archive is set up within three months after the conclusion of the workshop]. 4048 candidates will be selected. Participants will either be scientists or be librarians. The important thing is they should be computer savvy and committed to the cause of open access and be able to persuade scientists (faculty and students) in their respective institutions to place their research papers in the archives. Guest speakers: We are inviting Prof. M S Swaminathan, Prof. M S Valiathan, Dr R A Mashelkar and Prof. P Balaram to give guest lectures (on how they, as working scientists, view open access). Two of them will address the participants of the first workshop and the other two the second workshop.
Re: How many journals sell authors Open Access by the article?
At 08:47 PM 3/10/2004 +, Thomas Walker wrote: What publishers sell free access by the article, in what journals, and at what price? [...] Thomas J. Walker Department of Entomology Nematology PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive) University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620 E-mail: t...@ufl.edu (or tjwal...@ifas.ufl.edu) FAX: (352)392-0190 Web: http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/ Thomas, Thanks for your useful list. Here are two additions: Publisher: Infotrieve Journal: _The Scientific World_ Price: Varies according to article length, from $150 (for 1-5 pp.) to $600 (for 21-25 pp.); articles longer than 25 pp. will be priced at the time of acceptance. http://www.thescientificworld.com/AuthorServices/OpenChoice.asp Publisher: Oxford University Press Journal: _Nucleic Acids Research_, the annual Database Issue Price: £300/$500; waiver available for authors who cannot pay. http://www3.oup.co.uk/nar/special/14/default.html Peter -- Peter Suber Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
SciDev.Net's Special Section on Open access and Scientific Publishing
[Forwarding from SciDev.Net. --Peter.] The Science and Development Network (SciDev.Net) is pleased to announce its new quick guide on science publishing (www.scidev.net/scipub). Concentrating on the issue of how developing-country scientists can access the latest scientific research, the quick guide offers an insight into the discussions on this controversial topic and gives an overview of new initiatives to make science literature more accessible. Packed with news, features and opinions as well as updated background resources including key documents, links, definitions and events, the quick guide on science publishing aims to keep you up-to-date on the latest developments. Highlights include the following specially commissioned articles for SciDev.Net: 1) David Dickson, director of SciDev.Net, gives an overview of the different approaches being taken to increase access to the latest scientific literature for developing-country researchers. http://www.scidev.net/quickguides/index.cfm?fuseaction=dossierfulltextqguideid=4 2) Subbiah Arunachalam, a distinguished fellow at the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India, argues that the best way to make scientific research more available worldwide is to encourage scientists to self-archive their research. http://www.scidev.net/quickguides/index.cfm?fuseaction=qguideReadItemtype=3itemid=243language=1qguideid=4 3) Helen J. Doyle of the Public Library of Science, calls on scientists, research funders and others to support the open-access movement and help increase access to scientific information across the globe. http://www.scidev.net/quickguides/index.cfm?fuseaction=qguideReadItemtype=3itemid=244language=1qguideid=4 The quick guide also contains a spotlight on WSIS, drawing together news and resources from the event, including SciDev.Net's reports from the first stage in Geneva in December 2003. The quick guide is aimed at those interested in the current challenges and discussions surrounding science publishing, and will be of particular interest to developing-country scientists who have difficulty accessing the latest research findings. Please pass this message to friends and colleagues. Many thanks, The SciDev.Net team. ==
Message from Declan Butler, Nature
[Forwarding from Declan Butler at Nature. --Peter.] Nature is to run a web focus on access to the literature from mid March to mid-May. I would very much like to link from the focus to as many position papers that people have made public on this. In particular, many institutions have worked recently to produce evidence for the UK's parliament's select committee inquiry on scientific publications. I would also like to link to as many of these submissions as possible. The select committees rules mean that societies, university presses and other non-profits are only allowed to make their evidence public as of next Tuesday, after they have given oral evidence. If you would like the Nature focus to link to your submission, please send the url - as soon as the submission is on a publicly accessible part of your site - to Declan Butler, d.but...@nature.com mailto:d.but...@nature.com If you have not given evidence to the committee but have a position paper, please send Declan the URL for this. Declan Butler European correspondent, Nature 7 rue Guy de la Brosse 75005 Paris, France Tel: (33) 1 43 36 59 90
Re: OAI compliant personal pages
Jim, Jean-Claude, and Tim, Don't forget about Kepler, http://kepler.cs.odu.edu:8080/kepler/index.html, software for creating an archivelet or an OAI-compliant archive for the research output of a single person. Kepler runs on Windows 2000/XP, Linux, Solaris, and Mac OS X. Peter Suber At 05:29 PM 2/10/2004 +, you wrote: Jim Till wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote [in part]: [j-cg] the growing number of open access repositories [j-cg] including OAI compliant personal pages I noted with interest Jean-Claude's comment about OAI compliant personal pages. How can such pages be identified as OAI compliant (and, how can their number be estimated)? I don't know what J-CG means. Individuals can of course set up an OAI repository, which is just a collection of metadata records. If it's OAI-compliant it could be registered with Open Archives Initiative - Repository Explorer http://oai.dlib.vt.edu/cgi-bin/Explorer/oai2.0/testoai There isn't a 'discovery' method as such for OAI -- we have searched for GNU EPrints sites by using a Web search for terms that are common across installations. http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php Regards, Tim Brody
February issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
I just mailed the February issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. In addition to the usual round-up of news and bibliography from the past month, it offers some predictions for open-access developments in 2004 and looks at the reasons why open access is progressing more slowly in the humanities than the natural sciences. February issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/02-02-04.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html The archive of back issues is open to non-subscribers http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter -- Peter Suber Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
New channel of support for open-access publishing
For immediate release January 14, 2004 For more information, contact: Helen Doyle, Public Library of Science, +1 415.624.1217, hdo...@plos.org or see http://www.plos.org/support. NEW CHANNEL OF SUPPORT FOR OPEN-ACCESS PUBLISHING Public Library of Science Announces Launch of Institutional Memberships January 14, 2004 San Francisco, CA. The movement for free online access to scientific and medical literature was bolstered earlier this month when the Public Library of Science [PLoS], a non-profit advocacy organization and open-access publisher, began offering Institutional Memberships. The announcement followed the October launch of PLoS Biology, the organization's flagship scientific journal, which is available on the Internet at no charge. Open-access publishers such as PLoS rely on revenue streams other than subscription and site-license fees to recover their costs. In lieu of asking readers to pay for access to PLoS Biology, PLoS requests a $1500 charge for publication in the journal, which is often paid from an author's research grant -- but which can now be largely offset by funds from other sources within the author's institution. Institutional memberships, says Dr. Helen Doyle, PLoS Director of Development and Strategic Alliances, are one way to provide an incentive for scientists in less well-funded disciplines, as well as those in developing countries, to publish in open-access journals. The memberships, which are available to universities, libraries, funders of research, and other organizations, offer sizable discounts on publication fees for affiliated authors--meaning that a scholarly institution, private foundation, or corporation could substantially reduce any financial barrier to publishing in PLoS Biology that its researchers faced. Skeptics of the long-term viability of open-access publishing have argued that publication charges may be more palatable for scientists in the relatively well-funded disciplines of biomedical research than for those in fields like ecology, where grants tend to be substantially smaller. We already waive all fees for any authors who say they can't afford them, Doyle adds, but we hope that Institutional Memberships will help assuage the concern that open access journals are unsustainable in fields with less funding. In biomedicine, publication charges are estimated to account for approximately one to two percent of the cost of research. Another open-access publisher, the United Kingdom-based BioMed Central, already offers an Institutional Membership program, and to date has an active roster of more than 300 institutions in 32 countries.
Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
At 02:13 PM 1/3/2004 +, Jan Velterop wrote: Peter, You're absolutely correct in your observation that our differences are minute, in the scheme of things. Nonetheless, I think I disagree with you that we have Open Access if just the price barrier is lifted. Jan, You have this part of my position reversed. On this point I was agreeing with you that open access goes beyond lifting price barriers to lifting permission barriers. For a fuller exposition of why I think removing both kinds of access barrier is important, see http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/acrl.htm Best, Peter -- Peter Suber Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
Jan, Thanks for your comment. I've already argued in public that deposit should not be part of the definition of OA, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-04-03.htm, and there's no need to repeat the arguments here. The same arguments apply to OAI-compliance. The point is a delicate one, since I strongly support both deposit and OAI-compliance. I just think there's a difference between the definition of OA and steps we can take to make OA literature more useful, just as there's a difference between the definition of (say) voting and steps we can take to make the right to vote easier to exercise and harder to take away. I accept your argument that interoperability makes archived literature more useful. But that doesn't make it part of the definition of OA. If it did, then everything that makes archived literature more useful would be part of OA --including peer review and punctuation. There is more than one good thing, and luckily all the ones we're talking about are compatible. Literature should be OA *and* interoperable *and* preserved *and* peer-reviewed Drug companies say that a certain medicine is safe and effective without feeling any pressure to redefine effectiveness as part of the concept of safety. To me, open access is a kind of access, not a kind of interoperability or a kind of preservation. When literature is openly accessible, it's much more useful than the same literature behind price and permission barriers. But there's still a lot that we can do to make it even more useful. For example, we can make it interoperable and we can preserve it. I want us to do all of these things. I just want us to be clear about what we're doing. When we do them, we're not providing OA; we're enhancing literature that is already OA. An archive might be open access without being OAI-compliant. That was the case with PubMed Central until this fall. When it became OAI-compliant, it did not become open-access; it was already open-access. It became interoperable with other OAI-compliant archives, and more useful. BTW, I agree with you that the Bethesda and Berlin statements err by limiting the number of copies of an OA work that the author could make for personal use. If the work is OA, there should be no limit. I applaud BMC for deleting this restriction from its own definition. I think the two statements also err by making deposit part of the definition of OA, though they do not err by encouraging deposit. Finally, I want to emphasize how minor our differences are. We do not differ on what ought to be done. Thank goodness. We differ only on how to define a term. On this, if we can't persuade one another, at least we can agree to disagree. Happy new year, Peter (PS. I'm about to leave town for two days, without connectivity. If this conversation continues, I'll catch up when I return.) At 09:00 PM 1/2/2004 +, you wrote: Peter, I beg to differ. Maybe to the letter these things are not 'conditios sine qua non' for Open Access, but they pretty much are 'conditios sine qua useless'. The exception is perhaps the copyright provision, as any copyrightholder can assign the article to Open Access; it doesn't have to be the author. But the other points are important, and in my view part and parcel of Open Access, indeed of its whole 'reason d'etre', and not just 'supportive practices'. What is Open Access worth if an article is 'open' but not easily universally accessible? For that we need OAI-compliance. What is Open Access if not in a public archive, outside the reach of whatever residual power of the publisher and the chance to get lost? Don't underestimate the risks here. What is Open Access if not with the right to complete re-use, even 'commercial'? Let's not forget that 'commercial' doesn't always entail immense profits. It also covers the local printer who takes an Open Access article, prints it, brings it to places that the Web doesn't (yet) reach, and makes a modest profit in the process. If that should be proscribed, access isn't truly open. This last issue, by the way, exposes a flaw in the Bethesda, Wellcome and Berlin declarations. They still speak of allowing 'a limited number of print copies for personal use'. We, at BioMed Central, don't agree, and we therefore impose no restrictions whatsoever on the number of print copies. Relinquishing them would threaten income in the old model, but not anymore in the Open Access model, so what's the point of restrictions anyway? I can't escape the thought that the discussion questioning the need to have these conditions/rights in the definition of Open Access betrays a less than full transition in thinking from the '(copy)rights-mongering' model of publishing to the 'service' model. After the publisher has been paid for the service of having the material properly peer-reviewed, made 'web-ready' and embedded in the literature via reference-linking, OAI-compliance, inclusion in secondary services
January issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
I just mailed the January issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. In addition to the usual round-up of news and bibliography from the past month, it takes a close look at open access momentum during 2003, the many-copy problem and many-copy solution, and the gap between the literature directly available through a university library and the literature that campus patrons need for their research. January issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-04.htm How to subscribe and unsubscribe to the newsletter and discussion forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html The archive of back issues is open to non-subscribers http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter
Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
Sally, I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply to your helpful post. More below. At 09:02 AM 12/31/2003 +0100, Sally Morris wrote: [Omitting short descriptions of OA journals and OA archives.] In neither case is any of the following a sine qua non, though they appear to be 'articles of faith' for some: *Copyright retention by the author, or the author's institution (or, for that matter, absence of copyright - i.e. 'public domain') *OAI compliance *Absence of restrictions on re-use (including commercial re-use) *Deposit in a specific type of archive Am I alone in seeing it this way? No, you're not alone. I agree with you about three of the four. Let me take your points in order. * OA doesn't require authors to retain copyright. It requires the copyright holder (whoever that is) to consent to OA. But because authors are much more likely to consent to OA than journals, letting authors retain copyright is an important sub-goal for the OA movement. When authors ask to retain copyright and are denied, they should ask for permission to archive the postprint. * OA doesn't require OAI-compliance. OAI-compliance makes open-access archives more useful, by making them interoperable. But it doesn't make them open-access. However, because it makes them more useful, spreading OAI-compliance is also an important sub-goal for the open-access movement. * I do believe that OA requires the absence of most copyright and licensing restrictions, or what I have called permission barriers. It does not require the public domain, or absence of all these restrictions, although that's one important path to OA. We can quibble about exactly which rights copyright holders should waive in order to make OA possible. Here's my personal list: the copyright holder should consent in advance to unrestricted reading, downloading, copying, sharing, storing, printing, searching, linking, and crawling. This is compatible with retaining the right to block the distribution of mangled and misattributed copies. Commercial reuse is the tough one. I've always thought that OA was compatible with commercial reuse, and still think so. But I once thought that OA authors shouldn't consent to it, and now I think they should. However, as I put it in FOSN for 1/30/02, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-30-02.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-30-02.htm , I want to make this preference genial, or compatible with the opposite preference, so that the [OA] movement can recruit and retain authors who oppose commercial use. * In my view, OA does not require deposit in a specific type of archive. However, the Bethesda and BMC definitions of OA take the opposite view. In any case, archiving is one direct path to OA itself, and in addition makes journal-published OA articles more useful. It's rarely important to separate OA itself from practices that make OA more likely or more useful. On the contrary, it's usually important to defend all of these at once. But when we need to separate the definition of OA from supportive practices (authors retaining copyright, deposit in certain kinds of archives, steps toward long-term preservation...), then see the start I made toward clarification in SOAF for 8/4/03, http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-04-03.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-04-03.htm . Peter _ Peter Suber Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
At 03:16 PM 12/31/2003 +, Stevan Harnad wrote: The discussion of the Free/Open Access distinction appears to be growing. I see that Peter Suber has posted a reply to the SOAF list, which I will re-post to the Amsci Forum in a moment so I can reply to it on both lists after I have replied to Mike Eisen (in prep.!). [...] (3) If BOAI-1 (self-archiving) indeed yielded only free access but not open access: (i) Why would we dub BOAI-1 an open-access strategy rather than merely a free-access strategy? Self-archiving is a true open-access strategy, not merely a free-access strategy. Authors who self-archive their articles are consenting not only to price-free access, but to a range of scholarly uses that exceeds fair use. We can quibble about what authors really consent to, since there is no consent form connected to the self-archiving process. But at least the BOAI was clear on what it called on authors to consent to under the name of open access: By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. This list of permissible uses is not intrinsic to price-free access and needed explicit enumeration. Moreover, it exceeds fair use as provided by copyright law. I will frankly say that I not only consider the free/open distinction to be an ill-conceived and insubstantial after-thought and a red herring; but, if sustained and promoted, I believe it will add yet another a huge and needless delay to the provision of the toll-free, full-text, online access that (for me, at least) this has always been about, since the advent of the online era. It's not ill-conceived because price barriers are different in kind from permission barriers; we might face either one without facing the other. It's not an after-thought because it was already contained in the BOAI. It's not a red herring because we must remove permission barriers as well as price barriers in order to maximize the impact and usefulness of research articles. I don't see the argument for the claim that my definition of open access will cause delay. Must we remind ourselves that what we need -- and don't have, but could have virtually overnight if we make up our minds we want it -- is maximised research impact through maximised research access? Isn't that what this is all about? That does *not* mean holding out for XML mark-up, raising the goal-posts so that only XML articles are seen as meeting the goal, and withholding the title of having met the goal from any article that is not XML -- while the *real* problem, which is the continuing toll-barriers to access and impact, just keeps on festering, unremedied! If you're still replying to me, then this misses the target. I never said open access included XML mark-up! Please reread my note. I merely said that open access removes both price and permission barriers, not just price barriers. Mike Eisen didn't say that open access included XML mark-up either. He merely said that XML mark-up is desirable, and that permission to do it is not part of fair use; and he's right about both points. Peter
Re: Free Access vs. Open Access
I agree with Mike. Here's how I've put it e.g. in http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/acrl.htm. There are two important kinds of access barriers: price barriers and permission barriers. Free online access removes price barriers. Open access removes both price and permission barriers. Do we need to remove permission barriers even when readers have fair-use rights? Yes. Fair use does not include permission to copy 100% of an article, let alone forward it to a colleague or store it for your own use. Open access includes permission for these important and increasingly routine acts of research. Peter
Open access gaining momentum
[Forwarding a brief excerpt from the current issue of Outsell's e-briefs (not otherwise online). --Peter.] http://content.outsellinc.com/coms2/ebriefs == Outsell's e-briefs December 12, 2003 A Weekly Analysis of Events and Issues Affecting the Information Content Industry == [...] It's a Movement: Open Access Gaining Momentum Critical mass for the Open Access movement is starting to build, and it feels like a tsunami in the making. This week two high-profile supporters came on board: - The Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons will conduct an inquiry into public access to journal publishing in the scientific community, with the goal of ensuring that researchers, teachers, and students have access to the content they need. The committee is seeking input on the effects of current pricing policies, and possible government action to support access. http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee/scitech111203a. - The United Nations' World Summit on the Information Society underway this week in Geneva is endorsing Open Access as a publishing strategy. The group's follow-the-money strategy will be to persuade those paying the bills for scientific information - governments, research agencies, foundations and companies - that publication in open-access journals is in their interest. http://www.wsis-si.org/si-wg.html Support for Open Access is pouring in, but it will look messy for a while. New phenomena often take time to sort themselves out, but in time we will see the proponents settle on the models and principles that will carry the movement forward.
December issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
December issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/12-02-03.htm Subscription info, discussion forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html Subscriptions are free, and the archive of back issues is open to non-subscribers http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter -- Peter Suber Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
November issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter
I just mailed the November issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. In addition to the usual round-up of news and bibliography from the past month, it has pieces on the _PLoS Biology_ launch, the Berlin Declaration on Open Access, the Elsevier stock warnings from BNP Paribas and Citigroup Smith Barney, the AGORA and Ptolemy projects for creating open access in developing countries, the objection that OA journal processing fees exclude the poor, and the question whether trade embargoes should apply to scholarship. November issue http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-03.htm Subscription info, back issues, discussion forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html Subscriptions are free, and the archive of back issues is open to non-subscribers http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Peter -- Peter Suber Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
Re: Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature
At 09:48 AM 10/29/2003 +, you wrote: On 28 Oct 2003 at 17:02, Peter Suber wrote: This elaboration can easily be read to include the author's directory within an institutional repository. but the next faq from Nature says that 'you may not distribute the PDF... on open archives'. So presumably you can still keep _your_ version of the article on an open archive, but not the one which was published in Nature. Regards Chris Korycinski St Andrews eprints administrator, Main Library Chris, You're right. But the FAQ makes clear that it's the PDF and its distinctive look and feel, not the refereed text, that _Nature_ wants to keep out of open archives. As long as authors may post the refereed text to open archives, then we have all we need for open access. Best, Peter -- Peter Suber Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
Re: Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature
Stevan, I'm publishing a letter to the editor in _Nature_ and just got the license to sign. I thought you'd like to see a copy (attached). It still gives authors permission to post the work to their own web sites. But it now contains a mini-FAQ explaining this: The licence says I may post the PDF on my own web site. What does own mean? It means a personal site, or portion of a site, either owned by you or at your institution (provided this institution is not-for-profit), devoted to you and your work. If in doubt, please contact permissi...@nature.com. This elaboration can easily be read to include the author's directory within an institutional repository. FYI, Peter 0Licence.PDF Description: Adobe PDF document
Guide to Institutional Repository Software
OSI is pleased to announce the release of the Guide to Institutional Repository Software. The guide describes the five open source, OAI-compliant systems currently available. As many institutions are developing repositories, OSI thought it would be helpful to produce such a guide so that each institution could select the software best suited to meet its needs. Included in the guide is a brief narrative overview of each system followed by a summary of the systems technical features. The guide will be updated as additional systems are developed. To view the guide, please see: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/software/ best, Melissa Hagemann Open Society Institute
Oxford-University-Press/Oxford-University-Eprint-Archive Partnership
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OANews/List.html For immediate release: Friday 3 October 2003 OUP supports Oxford University Library Services Open Archives Initiative Oxford University Press (OUP) is delighted to announce a partnership with Oxford University Library Services, (OULS) in support of the national SHERPA project. Under the terms of the agreement, OUP will provide the Systems and Electronic Resources (SERS) department of OULS with online access to articles by Oxford University-based authors published in many of the Oxford Journals from 2002. The articles will then be searchable via the OULS pilot institutional repository and available free of charge to researchers across the globe. SHERPA is a three-year project that aims to investigate the concept of institutional open archive repositories. The creation, population and management of these repositories are at the heart of the project. Oxford University is one of nine UK institutions currently taking part, and providing OULS with access to such a large mass of research will allow valuable experimentation and evaluation to take place. I am delighted that we are the first publisher to become involved in this innovative project, commented Martin Richardson, Director of OUP's Journals Division. Access to our online journals corpus will provide a substantial collection of high quality scholarly research across a broad range of disciplines, facilitating investigations into some key technical, economic and cultural issues surrounding the creation of institutional repositories. It is early days for the SHERPA project at OULS, explained Frances Boyle, Electronic Resources Manager based at SERS. Our first task is to set up a server with the eprints.org software over the coming months. The collaboration with OUP will enable us to populate the repository with quality content. This initiative will kick-start the project and will enable OULS to host a demonstrator system for the many interested stakeholders at Oxford. More detailed information about the project will be available later this year from OULS at www.eprints.ouls.ox.ac.htmwww.eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk (please note that this link is not yet live) For further information contact: Rachel Goode, Communications Manager Journals Division, Oxford University Press Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP Tel: +44 1865 353388 Mobile: +44 7957 491505 Email: mailto:rachel.go...@oupjournals.orgrachel.go...@oupjournals.org www.oupjournals.org About Oxford University Press Oxford University Press (OUP) is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP publishes over 180 journals, two-thirds of which are published in collaboration with learned societies and other international organisations. For further information about the Journals Division, visit http://www.oupjournals.orgwww.oupjournals.org. About OULS The Systems and Electronic Resources Service is the IT support facility for Oxford University Library Services (including the Bodleian Library) and provider of scholarly electronic resources across all the libraries of Oxford and to academic users both on and off campus. For more than a decade, the Oxford libraries have been at the forefront of electronic provision within the UK and currently provide access to one of the largest portfolios of scholarly electronic resources, over 500 datasets and 7,000 electronic journals, in the UK. The range of material includes bibliographic, full-text, geospatial and image databases, held locally and on the internet in all subject areas. A strategic aim is to provide a hybrid library environment that will integrate library information services in a seamless and coherent manner to the benefit of users. For further information about OULS, visit http://www.lib.ox.ac.ukwww.lib.ox.ac.uk. About SHERPA SHERPA (Securing a Hybrid Environment for Research Preservation and Access) is a three-year project funded by JISC and CURL and hosted by Nottingham University. It aims to address issues surrounding the future of scholarly communication and publishing by creating a network of open access repositories to release institutionally-produced research findings onto the web. Nine institutions have been enlisted as development partners, with more to come. SHERPA will work through the technical, managerial and cultural issues of implementing institutionally-based open access repositories (so called e-print archives) that comply with the Open Archives Initiative standard. SHERPA will also provide information and advice to other institutions thinking of implementing their own institutional repositories. For more information about SHERPA, please visit www.sherpa.ac.htmwww.sherpa.ac.uk.
Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access
At 01:25 PM 10/1/2003 +0100, Barbara Kirsop wrote: Thanks, Arun, for your paper and letter to TWAS. Does anyone know what liklihood there is of OA being raised at the forthcoming WSIS meeting? I am out of touch with UK discussions and proposals and although I proposed an OA resolution at a British Council meeting last year I am unsure if this has been taken up. Maybe colleagues you have written to could chase this with their national committees. Attached for your information is a recent position statement on OA from the Wellcome Trust. [See separate posting on Wellcome Trust statement on open access https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/ ] Barbara Electronic Publishing Trust for Development Barbara, Yes, open access will come up at the WSIS. The WSIS Scientific Information Working Group has been pushing for a good statement on open access. But as you can imagine, there are many countervailing forces that tend to dilute good statements. The working group chair, Francis Muguet, is on the ground in Geneva doing an admirable job resisting these forces as far as possible. (I'm on the steering committee for the working group but have only participated electronically.) For more details, see the working group page, http://www.wsis-si.org/si-frame.html. Peter -- Peter Suber Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
Wellcome Trust statement on open access
Reposted from: https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/ A position statement by the Wellcome Trust in support of open access publishing The mission of the Wellcome Trust is to foster and promote research with the aim of improving human and animal health. The main output of this research is new ideas and knowledge, which the Trust expects its researchers to publish in quality, peer-reviewed journals. The Trust has a fundamental interest in ensuring that neither the terms struck with researchers, nor the marketing and distribution strategies used by publishers (whether commercial, not-for-profit or academic) adversely affect the availability and accessibility of this material. With recent advances in Internet publishing, the Trust is aware that there are a number of new models for the publication of research results and will encourage initiatives that broaden the range of opportunities for quality research to be widely disseminated and freely accessed. The Wellcome Trust therefore supports open and unrestricted access to the published output of research, including the open access model (defined below), as a fundamental part of its charitable mission and a public benefit to be encouraged wherever possible. Specifically, the Trust: ·welcomes the establishment of free-access, high-quality scientific journals available via the Internet; ·will encourage and support the formation of such journals and/or free-access repositories for research papers; ·will meet the cost of publication charges including those for online-only journals for Trust-funded research by permitting Trust researchers to use contingency funds for this purpose; ·encourages researchers to maximize the opportunities to make their results available for free and, where possible, retain their copyright, as recommended by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), the Public Library of Science, and similar frameworks; ·affirms the principle that it is the intrinsic merit of the work, and not the title of the journal in which a researcher's work is published, that should be considered in funding decisions and awarding grants. As part of its corporate planning process, the Trust will continue to keep this policy under review. Definition of open access publication1 An open access publication is one that meets the following two conditions: 1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual (for the lifetime of the applicable copyright) right of access to, and a licence to copy, use, distribute, perform and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works in any digital medium for any reasonable purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship2, as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use. 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository). Notes: 1. An open access publication is a property of individual works, not necessarily of journals or of publishers. 2. Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now. The definition of open access publication used in this position statement is based on the definition arrived at by delegates who attended a meeting on open access publishing convened by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in July 2003.
Wellcome Trust report on science publishing
Re-posted from: https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/ REPORT HIGHLIGHTS SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING CONCERNS A new report published today by the UK's leading biomedical research charity reveals that the publishing of scientific research does not operate in the interests of scientists and the public, but is instead dominated by a commercial market intent on improving its market position. Conducted by SQW the report, An economic analysis of scientific research publishing, is one of the most comprehensive analyses of its kind and provides an insight into a publishing industry which generates some £22 billion annually. The report is published by the Wellcome Trust which plans to use this as a first step in facilitating a dialogue between various players in the scientific publishing field to address the concerns which the Trust has regarding current publishing practices. The ultimate aim of this dialogue would be to develop a publishing system that meets the needs of all publishers, authors, academics and funders, and best promotes the public good of scientific work that is, disseminate research outputs to all who have an interest in them. The report reveals an extremely complex market for scientific publishing, influenced by a host of different players each with different priorities. These include: * Commercial publishers: working to secure and enhance their business position, * Not-for-profit publishers, including Learned Societies: who seek a satisfactory return on their journals in order to fulfil their broader objectives, * Libraries: who have to purchase a wide portfolio of journals to meet the needs of the academics they serve, but who do so on a limited, and sometimes decreasing, budget, * Academic researchers: whose primary concern is to disseminate their research in reputable journals, regardless of their cost and accessibility. Dr Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said: As a funder of research, we are committed to ensuring that the results of the science we fund are disseminated widely and are freely available to all. Unfortunately, the distribution strategies currently used by many publishers prevent this. We want to see a system in place that supports open and unrestricted access to research outputs and we would like to encourage others to support this principle. Today's report maps out the market as it stands and we hope to use this as a way of starting a dialogue with others to join us in finding a new model for the way we publish research, and one that satisfies the needs of those involved. The report highlights the merits of electronic publishing which is already being utilised as a tool for improving the efficiency and accessibility of research findings. Although previously regarded with suspicion by academics who doubted quality control and the peer review process involved, reservations about this form of publishing are gradually decreasing. Electronic publishing has transformed the way scientific research is communicated, said Dr Mark Walport. Take the Human Genome Project as an example. The data from that project was made immediately available on the world-wide web and could be used by everyone free of charge. It was the absence of constraints and the ease of access that enabled us to reach vast numbers of researchers in more than 100 countries. The model of the Human Genome Project need not be unique and it is the principle of free access that we want to champion. The fundamental point is that as a research funder we have to question whether it is right that we, and others, are in the position of having to pay to read the results of the research that we fund. Media contact: Noorece Ahmed Wellcome Trust Media Office Tel: 020 7611 8540 mailto:n.ah...@wellcome.ac.uk Notes to editors: 1. Commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, An economic analysis of scientific research publishing has been conducted by the economic development consultants SQW. 2. The full report is available on the Wellcome Trust website: www.wellcome.ac.uk 3. The Wellcome Trusts position statement in support of open access publishing is available at: [url to follow] The Wellcome Trust is an independent, research funding charity, established under the will of Sir Henry Wellcome in 1936. The Trust's mission is to foster and promote research with the aim of improving human and animal health.
Re: ePrint Repositories
http://lists.openlib.org/pipermail/oai-eprints/ [Forwarding at the request of Eugenio Pelizzari. --Peter Suber.] Dear Prof. Suber, I put on the web site of my library a paper on OAI: Harvesting for Disseminating that will be published on the journal The Acquisitions Librarian (in 2005!). I'd like your opinion. Could it be mentioned on the various discussion lists on OAI/E-prints? Many thanks. Eugenio Pelizzari http://www.bci.unibs.it/doc/Pelizzari-REVIEWED-harvesting%20for%20disseminating%20FINAL.doc Eugenio Camillo Pelizzari Tel. 030 2988345 Biblioteca Centrale InterfacoltàFax: 030 2988367 Università degli Studi di Brescia mailto:peliz...@eco.unibs.it Via Porcellaga, 21 25121 BRESCIA http://www.bci.unibs.it
Directory of Open Access Journals
LUND UNIVERSITY LAUNCHES DIRECTORY OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS May 12, 2003 Lund, Sweden - Lund University Libraries today launches the Directory of Open Access Journals ( DOAJ, http://www.doaj.org ), supported by the Information Program of the Open Society Institute ( http://www.osi.hu/infoprogram/ ), along with SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, ( http://www.arl.org/sparc ). The directory contains information about 350 open access journals, i.e. quality controlled scientific and scholarly electronic journals that are freely available on the web. The service will continue to grow as new journals are identified. The goal of the Directory of Open Access Journals is to increase the visibility and accessibility of open access scholarly journals, thereby promoting their increased usage and impact. The directory aims to comprehensively cover all open access scholarly journals that use an appropriate quality control system. Journals in all languages and subject areas will be included in the DOAJ. The database records will be freely available for reuse in other services and can be harvested by using the OAI-PMH ( http://www.openarchives.org/ ), thus further increasing the visibility of the journals. The further development of DOAJ will continue with version 2, which will offer the enhanced feature of allowing the journals to be searched at the article level, and is expected to be available in late fall 2003. For the researcher DOAJ will mean simplified access to relevant information said Lars Björnshauge, Director, Lund University Libraries. The directory will give open-access journals a simple method to register their existence, and a means to dramatically enhance their visibility. Moreover, by enabling searches of all journals in the database at the article level, the next stage of DOAJ development will save research time and increase readership of articles. If you know a journal that should be included in the directory, use this form to report it to the directory: http://www.doaj.org/suggest. Information about how to obtain DOAJ records for use in a library catalog or other service you will find at: http://www.doaj.org/articles/questions/#metadata.
Quick Guide to Eprints from Oxford University Computing Services
Excerpted from: http://www.eprints.org/fosblog.php Michael Fraser has written a very useful Quick Guide to Eprints http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/rts/eprints/index.xml for the Oxford University Computing Services web site. For readers new to the concept, this guide is just the right length. Apart from the clear introduction, Fraser also gives a bit of news: Over the next few months a pilot eprints repository will be developed in Oxford together with policies and support.
Anniversary of the BOAI, launch of the BOAI Forum
of Sciences to introduce the benefits of open access publishing. The conference was held in Budapest from 16-18 January, 2003. 24 Academies from the former Soviet Union, Central and Eastern Europe, and China participated. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/meeting.shtml 7. Support speakers and selected participants to attend international conferences to spread awareness of the benefits of open access. OSI has supported the attendance of speakers at various international conferences including: the 2nd Workshop on the Open Archives Initiative, held at CERN (http://library.cern.ch/Announcement.htm); and the First Nordic Conference on Scholarly Communications (http://www.lub.lu.se/ncsc2002/). 8. Development of the Academic Contributor Information System (ACIS), which will create a relational dataset between authors and their publications and institutions. This information will assist in building awareness of the benefits of institutional repositories. OSI is collaborating with the Palmer School of Library and Information Science at Long Island University on this project. http://acis.openlib.org/ 9. Free Online Scholarship newsletter, written by Peter Suber, was supported from October 2001-August 2002. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm 10. User's manual for Eprints2, an Open Archives Initiative compliant software, will be developed. The manual will assist in the development of institutional repositories. http://www.eprints.org/ I hope to hear from you through the BOAI Forum. Best wishes, Peter Suber Moderator, BOAI Forum
SPARC Institutional Repository Checklist Resource Guide: Raym Crowe
SPARC Institutional Repository Checklist Resource Guide by Raym Crowe http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/IR_Guide.html Posted to http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html by Peter Suber at 5:31 PM. Excerpts: Institutional repositories complement existing metrics for gauging institutional productivity and prestige. Where this increased visibility reflects a high quality of scholarship, this demonstration of value can translate into tangible benefits, including the funding -- from both public and private sources -- that derives in part from an institution's status and reputation. While gaining credit for professional advancement is a key motivation for academic publishing, the primary reason is communicating with others about their research and contributing to the advancement of knowledge in their field. The principal author benefit of participating in an institutional repository [is] enhanced professional visibility... This visibility and awareness is driven by both broader access and increased use. No library can afford a subscription to every possible journal, rendering much of the research literature inaccessible to many of an institution's researchers. Interoperability protocols and standards, when applied to institutional repositories, create the potential for a global network of cross-searchable research information. By design, networked open access repositories lower access barriers and offer the widest possible dissemination of a scholar's work. A related author benefit derives from the increased article impact that open access papers experience compared to their offline, fee-based counterparts, whether print or electronic. Research has demonstrated that, with appropriate indexing and search mechanisms in place, open access online articles have appreciably higher citation rates than traditionally published articles. This type of visibility and awareness bodes well for both the individual author and for the author's host institution.
Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy
But Peter Suber was unsuccessful in getting it clarified: (2002) Elsevier's self-archiving policy http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2104.html (The last includes reference to a letter Peter Suber sent to Derk Haank for a clarification of Elsevier self-archiving policy -- to which I believe he received no reply. Correct. I have still not received a reply. Peter -- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Email pet...@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Editor, FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Re: PLoS Biology
At 03:18 PM 1/4/2003 -0500, Jim Till wrote [in part]: I've just been reading Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (Little, Brown Co., 2002 edition). The Tipping Point is that magic moment when an idea, trend, or social behavior crosses a threshold, tips, and spreads like wildfire. I hope that the establishment of the BMC and PLoS journals will be seen, in retrospect, as magic moments when open access to the biological and biomedical research literature began to spread like wildfire. Jim Till University of Toronto Jim: I share your hope. The launch of the PLoS journals is definitely a new milestone for open access. I don't know whether they will bring us to the tipping point, but I'm sure they will bring us closer. BTW, I argued in FOSN for 8/8/02, http://makeashorterlink.com/?W5B012CD1 (second story), [also http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2212.html] that open-access eprint archiving --as opposed to open-access journals-- had reached its tipping point. I provided six months' worth of evidence to show that its adoption and endorsement are accelerating. Peter Suber -- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Email pet...@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Editor, FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Re: Online Self-Archiving: Distinguishing the Optimal from the Optional
At 02:08 PM 12/16/2002 +, you wrote: Arthur Smith said: Uh, your math is way off there. The total would be $1 billion ($1000 million for clarity). And your $500 is after a factor-of-three improvement in costs that isn't exactly available as yet In a review study I did earlier this year (Learned Publishing, vol 15, no. 4, pp. 247-258) I came to the conclusion, based on several published studies from reputable researchers, that that $500/paper figure for refereeing costs is roughly right. Fytton Rowland. Fytton's paper is online here, http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y27124BC2 Peter -- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Email pet...@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Editor, FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Re: UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) review
In the recent postings on RAE ratings and scientometrics, I don't believe I've seen anyone cite this piece of research: Andy Smith and Mike Eysenck, The correlation between RAE ratings and citation counts in psychology (June 2002) http://psyserver.pc.rhbnc.ac.uk/citations.pdf The authors' summary: We counted the citations received in one year (1998) by each staff member in each of 38 university psychology departments in the United Kingdom. We then averaged these counts across individuals within each department and correlated the averages with the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) grades awarded to the same departments in 1996 and 2001. The correlations were extremely high (up to +0.91). This suggests that whatever the merits and demerits of the RAE process and citation counting as methods of evaluating research quality, the two approaches measure broadly the same thing. Since citation counting is both more costeffective and more transparent than the present system and gives similar results, there is a prima facie case for incorporating citation counts into the process, either alone or in conjunction with other measures. Some of the limitations of citation counting are discussed and some methods for minimising these are proposed. Many of the factors that dictate caution in judging individuals by their citations tend to average out when whole departments are compared. Peter -- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Email pet...@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Editor, FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Re: The Economist: Publish and perish
At 10:37 PM 11/18/2002 -0200, you wrote: There is an interesting article in The Economist of this week (November 16th-22nd) which raises questions about the scientific peer-review system: http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1441745 I am afraid that this article is not Open Access but the story and the facts can be found on this (much more specific) page: The Bogdanov Affair, by John Baez http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanov.html I wonder: is this affair related to the discussion between Andrew and Stevan on Peer Review and Self-Selected Vetting: Supplement or Substitute? Cheers, Imre Simon Here's a free story on the Bogdanovs in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/17/weekinreview/17JOHN.html And here's one in the Chronicle of Higher Education, accessible only to subscribers http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i12/12a01601.htm The Bogdanov story is not related to the dialogue between Andrew and Stevan except in the broadest sense. Because it challenges how well peer review is performed today in cutting edge physics, it invites the question how to reform peer review in order to preserve its traditional value and prevent this sort of problem. I find the Bogdanov case fascinating, but I haven't yet seen any direct FOS or open-access implications. Peer review is essential to open-access science just as it is to closed- or toll-access science. Open access doesn't depend on peer-review reform any more (or any less) than toll-access science depends on peer-review reform. Peter -- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Email pet...@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Editor, FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Re: Psychology and self-archiving
Christopher Green Stalking the Wild E-Print: A Scout's Impressions of Publicatia Incognita http://www.yorku.ca/christo/papers/stalking.htm a presentation for the upcoming National Communications Association conference (New Orleans, November 22). Four lessons from Green's experience maintaining the full-text archive, Classics in the History of Psychology: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/
Ariadne, D-Lib and SPARC on Eprint Archives
[Excerpts from Free Online Scholarship News http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html ] (1) September-October issue of Ariadne is now online. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue33/ * Andy Powell, 5 step guide to becoming a content provider in the JISC Information Environment http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue33/info-environment/ * John MacColl and Stephen Pinfield, Climbing the Scholarly Publishing Mountain with SHERPA http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue33/sherpa/ (2) SPARC http://www.arl.org/sparc/ has created an email discussion list devoted to institutional repositories (aka eprint archives). https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-IR/List.html (3) In DLib, October 2002: http://www.dlib.org/ Open Citation Linking: The Way Forward http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october02/hitchcock/10hitchcock.html Steve Hitchcock, Donna Bergmark*, Tim Brody, Christopher Gutteridge, Les Carr, Wendy Hall, Carl Lagoze*, Stevan Harnad, Excerpt from the abstract: The speed of scientific communication ? the rate of ideas affecting other researchers' ideas ? is increasing dramatically. The factor driving this is free, unrestricted access to research papers. Measurements of user activity in mature eprint archives of research papers such as arXiv have shown, for the first time, the degree to which such services support an evolving network of texts commenting on, citing, classifying, abstracting, listing and revising other texts. The Open Citation project has built tools to measure this activity, to build new archives, and has been closely involved with the development of the infrastructure to support open access on which these new services depend. This is the story of the project, intertwined with the concurrent emergence of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI).
Re: Responses to Walt Crawford's reflections on FOS
At 04:06 PM 10/7/2002 +0100, you wrote: On the issue of spending and money it may be good to point out that even if exactly the same amount of money were to be spent on a reverse business model (pay for dissemination rather than for access) as is currently being spent on subscriptions and access licences in the conventional model, the benefits of a reverse model would easily be superior, as it would ensure full open access to anyone, anywhere, which the conventional model does not. The benefits would be greater for the Have-Nots than for the Harvards (to use Stevan Harnad's terminology), but even for the Harvards the benefits of open access are substantial. The fact that a reverse, open access, model doesn't have to cost nearly as much as the conventional model (for a start, all costs and efforts to keep users out could be scrapped), is a welcome side-effect to all but conventional publishers, but not the crux of the matter, at least not for scientists and scholars. Jan Velterop BioMed Central Open Access Publishing Jan: Good point, well put. I made a similar point in my June piece for BMC's _Journal of Biology_: If these benefits [of open access] were expensive to produce, they would nevertheless be worth paying for - but it turns out that open access can cost much less than traditional forms of dissemination http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/jbiol.htm Best wishes, Peter -- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Email pet...@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Editor, FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Re: Responses to Walt Crawford's reflections on FOS
question, the redirection to pay for open access journals will not come from the forced cancellation of priced journals. We can't force anything. All we can do is create an attractive alternative and let it compete. If librarians agree that it is attractive, and cancel some priced journals that are no longer cost-effective, then the savings may contribute to further redirection. But even this portion of the redirection will have come from successful competition rather than boycotts, force, or pressure. Here's another perspective on this. When an existing product is expensive and you want to displace it with a free one, you don't have to exert pressure or call for boycotts. Just produce the free one and let it compete. We believe that journal articles (both preprints and postprints) can be free for end-users. Arranging the subsidies to make them free for end-users requires no pressure or boycotts either, just clear presentation of the facts underlying this beautiful opportunity. The key facts are the two highlighted by the BOAI in its opening sentences: An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. -- The FAQ: What is the intended impact of BOAI on initiatives to make scholarly literature affordable rather than free? We hope these initiatives succeed, because their success will make scholarly literature more accessible than it is today. However, we believe that the specific literature on which BOAI focuses, the peer-reviewed literature in all disciplines, can and should be entirely free for readers. Walt's comment: Noting that SPARC and related initiatives are directly and almost exclusively concerned with peer-reviewed research literature, this is answer is self-contradictory. I consider this an entirely fair paraphrase of the two sentences: We hope these initiatives succeed...but we believe they should fail because we have the only proper solution. Here's a better paraphrase: There's a best solution (free access) and a second-best solution (affordable access). Both are superior to the status quo (expensive access). We thought this was obvious, but perhaps it needs spelling out. If I prefer A to B and B to C, then I can back both A and B against C while consistently preferring A to B. SPARC supports both free and affordable journals. It also helped draft the BOAI. There's no contradiction here either. BOAI supports SPARC and SPARC supports BOAI. -- October issue of _Cites Insights_ http://home.att.net/~wcc.techx/civ2i13.pdf Create Change http://www.createchange.org/ PubSCIENCE http://pubsci.osti.gov/ Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ BOAI FAQ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm This is Chapter 2 of the public dialog between Walt Crawford and me on open access issues. In the July issue of _Cites Insights_, he reviewed several FOS-related articles, including two of mine. I replied in a June 28 posting to the FOS Forum, which includes my response to his skepticism that FOS might be part of the solution but not a Grand Solution. http://makeashorterlink.com/?I3F213602 Walt: I know you're about half-persuaded and about half not. Thanks for your willingness to listen to the arguments for the second half. -- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Email pet...@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Editor, FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Excerpts from: SPARC e-news/August-September 2002
Excerpts from *SPARC e-news* August-September 2002 From the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition http://www.arl.org/sparc, http://www.sparceurope.org Responses and subscription requests to: ali...@arl.org NB: Registration is still open for October's SPARC-sponsored workshops on Institutional Repositories and E-Print Archives in Washington, DC and Geneva. Please see ?page=h23 for details. _ Report on ALPSP Roundtable on Open Access Upcoming conferences workshops __ SPARC Scientific Communities eScholarship (California Digital Library [CDL]) http://escholarship.cdlib.org University of California International and Area Studies (UCIAS) has launched the UCIAS Digital Collection (http://repositories.cdlib.org/uciaspubs/), a peer-reviewed electronic publications program. UCIAS is a partnership of the University of California Press, the eScholarship program at the California Digital Library, and internationally oriented research units on eight University of California campuses. UCIAS (http://repositories.cdlib.org/uciaspubs/about.html) publishes peer-reviewed articles, monographs, and edited volumes generated by research projects, workshops, seminars, and conferences at internationally oriented institutes, centers, and programs involving the University of California. All publications are peer reviewed according to standards set by an interdisciplinary UCIAS editorial board. UC Press will publish and sell hard-copy versions of selected UCIAS volumes. The digital publications will be available free of charge and made persistently available through the CDL. 2c. SPARC Leading Edge BIOMED CENTRAL http://www.BioMedCentral.com The BIOMED CENTRAL (BMC) Institutional Membership Program has now attracted more than 50 members, including Harvard, Princeton, the World Health Organization and the University of California system. By becoming members of BMC, these institutions have chosen to actively support open access, a policy that is at the heart of its publishing activity. There are over 80 BMC open access journals (see http://www.biomedcentral.com/libraries/oajournals.asp). All researchers at member institutions whose research is accepted for publication in BIOMED CENTRAL's peer reviewed open access journals are eligible for a processing charge waiver. More information about the membership program can be seen at http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/instmembership.asp. NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS http://www.njp.org NJP continues its recent growth with 67 papers published to date in 2002. Over 165,000 papers have now been downloaded since the journal's launch. 5. ALPSP Roundtable on Open Access: Report by David Prosser, Director, SPARC Europe (incoming) On 13th September Raym Crow, SPARC Senior Consultant, presented a paper on converting existing journals to open access to a group of UK publishers in London. The round-table meeting, co-sponsored by the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) and the Open Society Institute (OSI), considered the future of journal publishing and, specifically, the opportunities (and threats) that open access brings to researchers, librarians, and publishers. Raym suggested that there is no single financial model for open access journals (where online access to the literature is free to all at the time of publication) and that different disciplines may require different solutions. Raym discussed a range of models (together with examples of where they had been used). Amongst these were: author publication fees, institution submission charges, sponsorship, offprint sales, differential versions (where the basic version is free and subscribers pay for an enhanced version), grants, institutional subsidies. Jan Velterop, from BioMed Central, described how they use a combination of the first two of these models to provide open access to papers published in their 57 biology and medical titles. Researchers' needs were put forward by Les Carr (Southampton University), who outlined the requirement of his fellow scholars for the literature to be integrated and accessible so that they can gain access to all the relevant research they need and to ensure that others can access their research. Martin Richardson (Oxford University Press) described alternatives to open access for increasing dissemination of the literature - e.g. consortia and whole-country licensing. Overall, there was some consensus from the participants (who were mostly from small to medium not-for-profit publishes) that open access would be good for the research community. Many also articulated the challenge of migrating from subscription-based to open access, especially in Europe where authors have traditionally not had the funds to pay for publication. Raym's presentation, together with those of the other round-table speakers, is available at http://www.alpsp.org/s130902.htm. Upcoming conferences
Re: Institutional OAI activity in the UK
At 06:17 PM 9/20/2002 +0100, you wrote: I am due to give a presentation on the institutional use of OAI and e-print archives in UK HEIs at the OAI conference in Geneva in mid-October. I am of course aware of the FAIR projects which are just getting up running, but it would be useful for me if you could let me know about any UK activity you know of outside of FAIR. For those in FAIR, it would be good if you could point me at a project web page or give a brief project outline. This will help me to make sure I represent your work correctly. I would appreciate responses by 1 October. For information, the SHERPA project web site is at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk . SHERPA is part of FAIR. Thanks Stephen Stephen Pinfield Assistant Director of Information Services Research and Learning Resources Hallward Library University Park University of Nottingham Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK Phone +44 (0) 115 951 5109 Fax +44 (0) 115 951 4558 Email stephen.pinfi...@nottingham.ac.uk Stephen, Last month I collected the major events in OAI and eprint archiving activity from the previous six months. See my list in the FOS Newsletter for August 8, 2002, http://makeashorterlink.com/?W5B012CD1 (scroll to the second story). I haven't separated the UK events from the rest, but that should not be too hard to do. Good luck, Peter -- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Email pet...@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Editor, FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Re: Excerpts from FOS Newsletter
Excerpts from Free Online Scholarship (FOS) Newsletter September 15, 2002 Measuring FOS progress [excerpts] Let's say that the adequacy of FOS is the percentage of the peer-reviewed literature from a given time period for which there is open access. We can talk about the adequacy of FOS in a given field, in a given language, in a given year (or other period), or we can speak of the adequacy of FOS overall. Our goal is to increase the adequacy of FOS every month in every field in every language until we reach 100% across the board. We can also set more provisional goals, such as 75% adequacy for geology in English by 2005. To the extent that FOS is still inadequate, scholars must still search priced or printed literature, and cannot assume (or let their students assume) that if it's not free online, then it's not worth finding. Unfortunately, we're very far from being able to measure adequacy. In a recent discussion I put the problem this way: [W]e have no good way of measuring the percentage of a discipline's published literature that is available online free of charge. An army of volunteers could take the measurement, but so far no army of volunteers has been mobilized to do so for any discipline. Software cannot do the job unless supplemented by human labor to tally the print-only literature inaccessible to software. Moreover, the measurement would have to be repeated every month to capture this very dynamic moment in history when publishers of all kinds are experimenting with ways to take advantage of the Internet. Here's an open call for volunteers --not necessarily an army. Let's start at the beginning. Before we try an actual count of the peer-reviewed articles published in a given field in a given language in a given period, let's see if we can come up with an efficient and accurate way to conduct such a count. This is a call for library virtuosos to share their wisdom. Lists of peer-reviewed journals will be easier to come by than timely updates to those lists or non-controversial decisions about whether to count a given journal in a given field or even whether to count a given article in the open access column. Once we've made some of these preliminary decisions, running a count on open-access journals can be automated, although writing the program would be non-trivial. Running a count on priced online journals could also be automated, but would face new hurdles. Running a count on print-only journals could not be automated, but some subsets of these journals are indexed in digital references, making them susceptible to an automated count. If the most efficient method were expensive, then we could apply for grants to carry it out periodically (at least for major disciplines and major languages). If it were less expensive, then we could expect scholars to make periodic counts, at least in the fields or languages that interested them, and publish their results. An online clearinghouse could collect the results, support comparisons and tracking, and prevent duplicated labor. Anyone game? The quotation is from James Morrison, The Free Online Scholarship Movement: An Interview with Peter Suber (September-October issue of _The Technology Source_) http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=articleid=1025 Please post your thoughts to the FOS Forum http://www.topica.com/lists/fos-forum/read (Anyone may read; only subscribers may post; subscription is free.) FOS home page, general information, subscriptions, editorial position http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm FOS Newsletter, subscriptions, back issues http://www.topica.com/lists/suber-fos FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html FOS Discussion Forum, subscriptions, postings http://www.topica.com/lists/fos-forum FOS Conferences http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm Guide to the FOS Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/guide.htm Sources for the FOS Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Copyright (c) 2002, Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/copyrite.htm ===
Momentum for Eprint Archiving
(Research, Innovation and Canadian Scholarship: Exploring and implementing some new models for scholarly publishing) on the lessons learned from its ongoing project to launch and monitor archives at seven Canadian universities. (See the CARL/ABRC entry for May above.) The conference program and registration information will soon appear at the CARL web site. http://www.carl-abrc.ca/ * There are also some developments without specific dates: The BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) is considering a program to support institutional archiving. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ (No details on the site yet. Stay tuned; I'll report any developments.) The BOAI self-archiving FAQ is growing steadily. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ (If you haven't seen it recently, see it now. It has become extremely detailed and thorough.) Helene Bosc reports that five eprint repositories have recently sprung up in France: These-En-Ligne (theses only) http://theses-en-ligne.in2p3.fr l'Institut Jean Nicod http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr l'Archive Lyon2 http://eprints.univ-lyon2.fr:8050/ Paristech (theses only) http://pastel.paristech.org Archivesic http://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ * Here are the URLs of some players mentioned above without links. Eprints http://www.eprints.org http://software.eprints.org/ Kepler http://kepler.cs.odu.edu/ Open Archives Initiative http://www.openarchives.org/ * Thanks to Helene Bosc, Sarah Faraud, Chris Gutteridge, Melissa Hagemann, Stevan Harnad, Rick Johnson, Xiaoming Liu, Tim Mark, Stephen Pinfield, Colin Steele, and Herbert Van de Sompel for providing details. Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Copyright (c) 2002, Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/copyrite.htm
Re: Ingenta to offer OAI eprint service
for production and hosting. (Ingenta would not compete with companies like BMC, for the same reason that Ingenta would not become a publisher.) Since the question hasn't yet arisen, Rowse can't give a price for this service. But he invites open-access journals to contact him to discuss it. It's possible that Ingenta's experience and economies of scale would make its production costs lower than other alternatives. Ingenta home page http://www.ingenta.com/ Ingenta announcement of its Open Archive and E-Print services http://makeashorterlink.com/?G36A21741 Eprints software http://www.eprints.org/ Open Archives Initiative http://www.openarchives.org/ For more on Ingenta's support for online scholarship, see its June 25 acquisition of BIDS, the non-profit academic bibliographic service in the UK. http://www.biblio-tech.com/UKSG/SI_PD.cfm?PID=10Alert=279 http://www.bids.ac.uk/info/fs_aboutbids.htm ...and its study of the impact of site licensing and library consortia on academic journal publishing. http://www.managinginformation.com/news/content_show_full.php?id=597 * PS. Some publishers ask Ingenta to allow free access to their contents. Here's one example, Journal of the Association of Laboratory Automation (current issue) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K58D24471 The only snag is that articles are only available for download for 24 hours. I don't know what this time limit means in practice. But if it is enforced, then this is free access without open access in the full sense. But that is only how one journal chose to regulate access. I recommend that fully open-access journals take Mark Rowse at his word. If you are comparing prices for mark-up, hosting, and production (just about everything but editing), then ask Ingenta for quote. Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Copyright (c) 2002, Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/copyrite.htm
Re: Excerpts from FOS Newsletter
/~peters/fos/index.htm FOS Newsletter, subscriptions, back issues http://www.topica.com/lists/suber-fos FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html FOS Discussion Forum, subscriptions, postings http://www.topica.com/lists/fos-forum FOS Conferences http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm Guide to the FOS Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/guide.htm Sources for the FOS Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Copyright (c) 2002, Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/copyrite.htm
Elsevier's self-archiving policy
See also: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0136.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1604.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1963.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1964.html In an article in the July 5 _Chronicle of Higher Education_ on institutional eprint archives, Jeffrey Young summarizes Elsevier's self-archiving policy in these words: Elsevier does allow its authors to publish their papers in institutional repositories or other noncommercial archives, provided that the authors ask permission first. He says that fewer than 5 percent of authors ask. Young interviewed Arie Jongejan, head of Elsevier's Science and Technology division. So perhaps this summary of company policy is based on Jongejan's authority. Young's article http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i43/43a02901.htm Since the _Chronicle_ article will have wide distribution, I'd like to note three qualifications to its summary of Elsevier's policy. (1) Elsevier allows authors to put preprints in public archives without special permission. The archived preprint may remain online after the postprint is published. Elsevier does not allow authors to update the online preprint to match the published postprint. http://authors.elsevier.com/PublisherInfoDetail.html?dc=PRP (2) Elsevier allows authors to put even postprints into institutional repositories provided that these are not accessible to the public. http://authors.elsevier.com/PublisherInfoDetail.html?dc=CI (3) Elsevier's CEO, Derk Haank, gave an interview with Richard Poynder in the April 2002 _Information Today_ in which he described a far more liberal archiving policy than the one described in the _Chronicle_ or the Elsevier web site. Here is the key excerpt from the Poynder interview. http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr02/poynder.htm [Haank] We consider open archiving to be in line with our policy of open linking, which we have always supported. As a founding father of CrossRef, we realize that other initiatives like open archiving could be another means to the same end. [...] [Poynder] You imply that open archiving is the same as CrossRef, but CrossRef assumes that linked articles are all behind a financial firewall. Open archiving, by contrast, depends on researchers self-archiving their articles on the Web so that anyone can access them at no cost. Supposing an academic wants to publish a paper in one of your journals, but to self-archive it on the Web as well. Would that be acceptable to Elsevier? [Haank] You can put your paper on your own Web site if you want. The only thing we insist on is that if we publish your article you don't publish it in a Springer or Wiley journal, too. In fact, I believe we have the most liberal copyright policy available. To me these statements imply (1) that Haank would allow Elsevier authors to archive postprints as well as preprints without case-by-case permission, and (2) that postprints may be put in publicly accessible archives. I asked him in an April letter whether the Budapest Open Access Initiative would be justified in drawing these inferences from his interview, but he has not replied. -- Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374 Email pet...@earlham.edu Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ Editor, FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Open access to the scientific journal literature
holder the authority to
decide - but most rights holders are profit seekers whose interest lies in
controlling access, distribution, and copying. But in their role as authors
of journal articles, scientists are not profit seekers and their interest
lies in dissemination to the widest possible audience. For this purpose, it
doesn't matter whether scientists retain copyright of their own articles or
transfer the copyright to an open-access journal or repository. Copyright
assures authors that authorized copies will not mangle or misattribute
their work. And the fact that the holder of the copyright consents to free
access sharply separates this kind of open access from what might be called
'Napster for science'.
Profit
Open-access publishing is compatible with revenue, and even profit, just as
it is compatible with a non-profit business model. For example, BioMed
Central is a for-profit publisher. Publishers adopt open access not to make
a charitable donation or political statement, but to provide free online
access to a body of literature, accelerate research in that field, create
opportunities for sophisticated indexing and searching, help readers by
making new work easier to find and retrieve, and help authors by enlarging
their audience and increasing their impact. If these benefits were
expensive to produce, they would nevertheless be worth paying for - but it
turns out that open access can cost much less than traditional forms of
dissemination. For journals that dispense with print, with subscription
management, and with software to block online access to non-subscribers,
open access can cost significantly less than traditional publication,
creating the compelling combination of increased distribution and reduced
cost. The revenue of an open-access publishing house cannot come from
subscriptions or licenses: that would violate the barrier-free nature of
open access. Instead of charging readers or their sponsors for access,
BioMed Central charges authors or their sponsors a fee for dissemination;
its revenue consists of these dissemination fees plus proceeds from the
sale of add-ons and auxiliary services.
Priced add-ons
An open-access journal gives readers access to the essential literature
without charge. But this is compatible with selling an enhanced edition, or
other products and services, to the same community of readers. A scientific
journal might sell 'add-ons' and auxiliary services such as current
awareness, reference linking, customization ('My Journal'), or a print
edition. Revenue from these add-ons may offset, or even exceed, the cost of
providing open access to the essential literature. One of BioMed Central's
most alluring auxiliary services is Faculty of 1000 [5], a recommendation
service harnessing a network of disciplinary experts to recommend the best
new work in a large number of biomedical specializations.
Print
Open access is free online access, and is perfectly compatible with other
kinds of access to the same content. A publisher of an open-access journal
might lose money by producing a print edition of the same content, and this
is one reason why some publishers might elect not to create a print
edition. But a publisher might decide to sell a print edition for cost to
those who need it, or prefer it, while serving most constituents through an
online open-access edition. Since the open-access edition can generate at
least as much revenue as is needed to cover its costs, and priced add-ons
can generate even more, publishers need no longer see the print edition of
a journal as the economic centerpiece of the enterprise. And of course,
open access is compatible with printing copies for the purpose of long-term
preservation, and compatible with users printing individual articles
through their browsers.
I don't know why these eight desiderata of traditional journals all begin
with the letter P (if we turn 'quality' into 'professional quality' and
fudge with 'intellectual property'). But it does tend to make the virtues
of open access easier to remember: if we adopt open access, we needn't
sacrifice any of the eight Ps, and we get open access to boot.
References
1. Public Library of Science [http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org]
2. Budapest Open Access Initiative [http://www.soros.org/openaccess/]
3. BioMed Central [http://www.biomedcentral.com]
4. PADI - Preserving Access to Digital Information
[http://www.nla.gov.au/padi/topics/18.html]
5. Faculty of 1000 [http://www.facultyof1000.com/]
Editors' Note
Peter Suber is Editor of The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ and has no commercial or other
relationship with BioMed Central or Journal of Biology.
Re: Excerpts from FOS Newsletter
, the blog has a handful of welcome virtues that the Newsletter lacked. It gives readers a wider choice of delivery methods (web, email, RSS). It gives each story a unique URL for reference. It promulgates news immediately, not weekly or intermittently. It delivers several small items per day, not one indigestible lump every week. And it broadcasts many voices --perhaps yours. FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html FOS Conferences http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm FOS home page http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm (Subscribe to the discussion forum, search the FOS pages.) * Postscript. Some of the improvements I described above were launched in wobbly forms and then repaired or improved. The blog archives, search engine, and email subscription are all in this category. If you tried them in their earliest forms and were not happy with the results, please try them again. * PPS. I want to thank Mark Pilgrim for his invaluable help with the FOS News blog. He helped me set up the archives, create permanent links to individual postings, make the site handicap accessible, set up RSS syndication, and improve the look and feel. He's also agreed to be a contributor. -- The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter is supported by a grant from the Open Society Institute. http://www.osi.hu/infoprogram/ == This is the Free Online Scholarship Newsletter (ISSN 1535-7848). Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, you may subscribe by signing up at the FOS home page. FOS home page, general information, subscriptions, editorial position http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm FOS Newsletter, subscriptions, back issues http://www.topica.com/lists/suber-fos FOS News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html FOS Discussion Forum, subscriptions, postings http://www.topica.com/lists/fos-forum FOS Conferences http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm Guide to the FOS Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/guide.htm Sources for the FOS Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters Copyright (c) 2002, Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/copyrite.htm ** If you receive this newsletter by email, then please delete the easy unsubscribe footer (below) before forwarding it to friends or colleagues. It contains a code identifying you as the original recipient of the email. If someone down the forwarding chain clicks on the unsubscribe link, then you will be unsubscribed. **
Ingenta to offer OAI eprint service
For immediate release, July 1, 2002 INGENTA SIGNS STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON TO CREATE OPEN ARCHIVE E-PRINT SERVICES Ingenta plc, which empowers the exchange of scholarly and professional research content online, has signed a strategic partnership with the University of Southampton to develop software which will form a key part of the growing Open Archives movement. The University has played a key role in the Open Archives initiative (OAi); with the development of the leading software resource supporting the initiative. ePrints, created by the Department of Electronics and Computer Science, allows organisations such as universities to create web-based archives (e-print services) for their research articles, lecture notes and other documents and associated metadata. Virginia Tech, the University of Glasgow and the Australian National University are among the hundreds of organisations worldwide who have implemented the software in order to provide easy and open access to the activities being undertaken by their researchers. The goal of the OAi movement is to create inter-operability between these archives, ultimately allowing web users to search a number of them simultaneously. This would result in a powerful new distribution channel through which researchers could collaborate. This will sit alongside and complement the formally published and peer-reviewed scientific literature provided by journal publishers. For this goal to be realised, many participating institutions will need to rely on commercially supported software and a standardised data input model. It is to create this service that Ingenta and Southampton have agreed to collaborate. Professor of Computer Science at the University of Southampton, Wendy Hall, CBE explains: There is a rapidly growing momentum behind the OAi movement, and behind the use of Southampton's ePrints software. However, if the movement is to deliver its ultimate vision, participating institutions need to rely on a robust and standardised infrastructure. It is this infrastructure that we will be creating in this ground-breaking strategic partnership with Ingenta. Under the terms of the strategic partnership, Ingenta will create an enhanced, commercially supported version of ePrints, which it will make available as a service to institutions worldwide. A share of the proceeds will be channelled back into supporting Southampton's research and development efforts in continuing to evolve ePrints, which will also remain available as open source software. Commenting on the partnership, Mark Rowse, Chief Executive, Ingenta said: Ingenta is renowned for creating robust and large-scale search facilities for published scholarly content on the Web, but we and our publisher customers recognise that the researcher requires more than formally published articles to fulfil their research needs. Together with Southampton University, we will create complementary e-print services that assist the researcher, the librarian and the institution in providing access to and archiving the whole of the research cycle. For more information, editorial contributions and photography, please contact: Amanda Procter Ingenta plc Tel: +44 (0)1865 799022 amanda.proc...@ingenta.com About Ingenta www.ingenta.com Ingenta is the global market leader in the management and distribution of published scientific, professional and academic research via the Internet, and develops and maintains specialist websites for publishers, self-publishing societies and libraries. For publishers of scientific, professional and academic periodicals, journals and reference works, Ingenta provides a suite of publisher services including data conversion, secure online hosting, access control and distribution services. For libraries and information professionals, Ingenta offers collection management and comprehensive document delivery options. Ingenta's collection of research content - 12 million articles from more than 5,400 online publications and 26,000 fax delivered publications - is accessed by over 5 million researchers and librarians a month via ingenta.com and other websites, making Ingenta one of the 10 largest Web service providers in the UK (New Media Age). In October 2000 and 2001, InfoWorld named Ingenta one of the top 100 e-businesses in the World. In March 2002, the BT/The Guardian Vision 100 survey named Ingenta as one of the top 100 most visionary companies in the UK. Ingenta is listed on the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange. About Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia (IAM) Research Group, part of the Department of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton http://www.iam.ecs.soton.ac.uk The Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia (IAM) Group follows a broad-based, multi- and inter- disciplinary research agenda that focuses on the design and application of computing systems
Developing Country Access to On-line Scientific Publishing, 4-5 October 2002
Please inform your colleagues interested to participate in a Round Table on DEVELOPING COUNTRY ACCESS TO ON-LINE SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING: Sustainable Alternatives 4-5 October 2002, Trieste, Italy http://www.ictp.trieste.it/ejournals/meeting2002 This is an open round table among scientists, decision-makers, journalists, electronic publishers, content providers, information and communication technology experts, donors and non-profit organizations working on the dissemination of science and the transfer of knowledge and technology towards developing countries. The goal is to bring together all interested parties to analyse, share experiences, promote ideas and discuss * innovative technological tools, * the digital divide, * licensing issues, * concrete strategic alternatives to support scientists working in remote areas and having low-bandwidth, or expensive access to on-line database services and the Internet. YOU ARE MOST WELCOME TO INTRODUCE A TOPICAL DISCUSSION = Please send us a draft of specific subjects for the debate = General enquiries on the round table can be sent to e...@ictp.trieste.it The round table will be held at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy. The Abdus Salam ICTP has a world-wide reputation as a research centre that has as its mission the promotion and support of science in the developing world. To register, please edit the registration form available at http://www.ictp.trieste.it/ejournals/meeting2002 and send it to the above e-mail address before October 2002. There is no registration fee for attending this activity. Local Organizers: Enrique Canessa, Hilda Cerdeira (ICTP) International Advisory Committee: - IUPAP Working Group on Communications in Physics: Martin Blume (APS), Ian Butterworth (Imperial College), Franck Laloe (ENS), S. Ushioda (Tohoku University) Hilda Cerdeira (ICTP) - Sir Roger Elliott, ICSU - Carol Priestley, INASP - Minella Alarcon, UNESCO - Mohamed Hassan, TWAS Sponsors: The Abdus Salam ICTP, TWAS, UNESCO, IUPAP, ICSU -oOo- v1.2/EC/June 2002
Open access to the scientific journal literature
holder the authority to
decide - but most rights holders are profit seekers whose interest lies in
controlling access, distribution, and copying. But in their role as authors
of journal articles, scientists are not profit seekers and their interest
lies in dissemination to the widest possible audience. For this purpose, it
doesn't matter whether scientists retain copyright of their own articles or
transfer the copyright to an open-access journal or repository. Copyright
assures authors that authorized copies will not mangle or misattribute
their work. And the fact that the holder of the copyright consents to free
access sharply separates this kind of open access from what might be called
'Napster for science'.
Profit
Open-access publishing is compatible with revenue, and even profit, just as
it is compatible with a non-profit business model. For example, BioMed
Central is a for-profit publisher. Publishers adopt open access not to make
a charitable donation or political statement, but to provide free online
access to a body of literature, accelerate research in that field, create
opportunities for sophisticated indexing and searching, help readers by
making new work easier to find and retrieve, and help authors by enlarging
their audience and increasing their impact. If these benefits were
expensive to produce, they would nevertheless be worth paying for - but it
turns out that open access can cost much less than traditional forms of
dissemination. For journals that dispense with print, with subscription
management, and with software to block online access to non-subscribers,
open access can cost significantly less than traditional publication,
creating the compelling combination of increased distribution and reduced
cost. The revenue of an open-access publishing house cannot come from
subscriptions or licenses: that would violate the barrier-free nature of
open access. Instead of charging readers or their sponsors for access,
BioMed Central charges authors or their sponsors a fee for dissemination;
its revenue consists of these dissemination fees plus proceeds from the
sale of add-ons and auxiliary services.
Priced add-ons
An open-access journal gives readers access to the essential literature
without charge. But this is compatible with selling an enhanced edition, or
other products and services, to the same community of readers. A scientific
journal might sell 'add-ons' and auxiliary services such as current
awareness, reference linking, customization ('My Journal'), or a print
edition. Revenue from these add-ons may offset, or even exceed, the cost of
providing open access to the essential literature. One of BioMed Central's
most alluring auxiliary services is Faculty of 1000 [5], a recommendation
service harnessing a network of disciplinary experts to recommend the best
new work in a large number of biomedical specializations.
Print
Open access is free online access, and is perfectly compatible with other
kinds of access to the same content. A publisher of an open-access journal
might lose money by producing a print edition of the same content, and this
is one reason why some publishers might elect not to create a print
edition. But a publisher might decide to sell a print edition for cost to
those who need it, or prefer it, while serving most constituents through an
online open-access edition. Since the open-access edition can generate at
least as much revenue as is needed to cover its costs, and priced add-ons
can generate even more, publishers need no longer see the print edition of
a journal as the economic centerpiece of the enterprise. And of course,
open access is compatible with printing copies for the purpose of long-term
preservation, and compatible with users printing individual articles
through their browsers.
I don't know why these eight desiderata of traditional journals all begin
with the letter P (if we turn 'quality' into 'professional quality' and
fudge with 'intellectual property'). But it does tend to make the virtues
of open access easier to remember: if we adopt open access, we needn't
sacrifice any of the eight Ps, and we get open access to boot.
References
1. Public Library of Science [http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org]
2. Budapest Open Access Initiative [http://www.soros.org/openaccess/]
3. BioMed Central [http://www.biomedcentral.com]
4. PADI - Preserving Access to Digital Information
[http://www.nla.gov.au/padi/topics/18.html]
5. Faculty of 1000 [http://www.facultyof1000.com/]
Editors' Note
Peter Suber is Editor of The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ and has no commercial or other
relationship with BioMed Central or Journal of Biology.
