[GOAL] Libraries and Open Access
*Discussion Forum on Global Equity,Libraries and Open Access* at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, on 26 October 2018, 13:00 - 14:30 GMT. https://goo.gl/1o7aNe Arun http://orcid.org/-0002-4398-4658 http://www.researcherid.com/rid/B-9925-2009 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] {Disarmed} Fw: [oadl] Re: ReOpen Access Policy on Website for Comments-Revised(4.7.2014)
Dear All: Here is the proposed OA policy of the Department of Science Technology and the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. This is a funder OA policy. Your comments and suggestions are welcome and may be sent to Dr T Madhan Mohan of DBT (madhan@nic.in) and me. Arun http://dbtindia.nic.in/docs/DBT-DST_Open_Access_Policy.pdf __._,_.___ Posted by: Subbiah Arunachalam subbiah.arunacha...@gmail.com Visit Your Group • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use __,_._,__ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fwd: Invitation to felicitation function for Mr.Madhan Muthu on 9 June 2014 at 11am
Friends: A function felicitating *Mr.Madhan Muthu,* Manager, Library and Information Services, at ICRISAT will be held in IIT Madras on* June 9 2014* at *11am in the Conference room on the 4th floor of the central library. *Prof. Pennathur Gautam will give away the *EPT Award* for excellence in promoting open access in the developing world to Madhan. This is the third year of the award and Madhan shares this year's award with Ms Rosemary Otando of Kenya. In the inaugural year, the award was given to another Indian, Dr Francis Jayakanth. Mr.Madhan Muthu has been championing open access of research publications for many years. He is also helping the open access programme in IIT Madras through formal interactions with Dean, Academic Research, and Dean, Academic Courses, who is the also the Dean in charge of the central library. Therefore it is my pleasure to invite you to join in the felicitation of Mr.Madhan Muthu and we hope that he would continue to offer his services to IIT Madras for completing the open access programme that has been initiated last year. *Programme schedule:* Date: 9 June 2014, Monday Time: 11am -11.45am Venue: Conference hall, 4th floor, IITM Central library Please join us for tea at 10.45am. Warm Regards Mangala Sunder Dr. Mangala Sunder Krishnan Professor Department of Chemistry Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600036 India E-mails: mangala_sund...@yahoo.com man...@iitm.ac.in ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fwd: Elsevier's Unforced Error
If, after all this, the scientists of the world do not unite now and revive the 'Boycott Elsevier' movement, we cannot blame the publisher hereafter. How can governments and funding bodies which support research remain silent spectators and let publishing companies hijack the copyright to the research results? Arun -- Forwarded message -- From: LIBLICENSE liblice...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:43 AM Subject: Elsevier's Unforced Error To: liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu From: Hamaker, Charles caham...@uncc.edu Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 16:11:37 http://svpow.com/2013/12/06/elsevier-is-taking-down-papers-from-academia-edu/ For those who are unhappy with decades of Elsevier's policies, practices, pricing, and even their recent purchase of Mendeley, their unforced error in issuing take-down notices is an amazing, mistaken and ultimately self-destructive decision on Elsevier's part. Anyone who has any disagreement with Elsevier on any issue: copyright, OA policies, hybrid journals, OA pricing, pricing in general, control of backfiles, text mining, any of a myriad of issues including, their crazy if you mandate it you can't do it IR policy and their standard refusal to permit re-printing their research, should publicize this far and wide. Elsevier, no matter what they say, has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt in this action, their limited understanding of their remit, their control of scholarly research, They are nobody's friend's except their shareholders. They have demonstrated their DNA, their belief in their right to control the content scholars and researchers create and publish with Elsevier. They are wrong. What copyright law says is irrelevant in this, what authors want to do with their own research is paramount. It might have been masked before under the guise of impact factors and collegial editorial board meetings in locations worldwide and smart as a whip editors, and outreach at conferences, and invitations to publish your research with us and PR, and more or less green OA policies, and excellent inhouse readings of directions in future trends, and all the other trappings and expertise they have in academic publishing which is at the top of its game. Those trapping are insufficient. Elsevier and its cynical relationship with authors and institutions, has been demonstrated by Elsevier itself. No one could have done this to them but themselves. The tide of OA, of authors making sure people who need to see it, get to read their research, OA in all its guises, is inexorable and if handled correctly even by such behemoths as Elsevier, will lift all boats in the publishing stream, despite the scaremongers and naysayers in publishing, or the mistaken advice of some in libraries, or even among OA advocates themselves. It's logic is persuasive, its goals commensurate ultimately with what authors want for their own research. To put up and enforce barriers to what scholars want to distribute that they themselves produce is antediluvian. Elsevier's unforced error may be more effective than any boycott. Chuck Hamaker ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [Open-access] OA declarations
You may include the Bangalore Declaration of 2006 as well. It was adopted at an international workshop held at IISc, Bangalore, and drafted by Alma swan and Barbara Kirsop. Arun On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:45 AM, 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 ___ open-access mailing list open-acc...@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Japan's National OA Mandate for ETDs.
The worldwide OA community will be greatful to Prof. SHUTO Makota if he (or one of his colleagues) to write a detailed article in English on the Japanese policy on making all dissertations OA. Arun From: jyog...@mext.go.jp jyog...@mext.go.jp To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org Sent: Tuesday, 2 April 2013, 11:10 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Japan's National OA Mandate for ETDs. Dear Peter Thank you for your interest. In Japan, use of the licence is still at the individual level, the national-level assessment has just begun. (Currently, Copyright Act is only.) Best Regards SHUTO Makoto SHUTO Makoto Cheif, Science Information Unit Office for Science Information Infrastructure Information Division, Research Promotion Bureau Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 3.11 Japan's National OA Mandate Day! 送信元: Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk 宛先: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org, 日付: 2013/04/01 17:47 件名: [GOAL] Re: Japan's National OA Mandate for ETDs. 送信者: goal-boun...@eprints.org Thanks you for this. It seems a welcome development. When the complete thesis is published is there an explicit licence (e.g. CC-BY) that permits re-use consistent with the principles of BOAI? P. -- 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 mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] On Aaron Swartz's martyrdom
Friends: Here are two commentaries on why knowledge must be free by two of my colleagues at the Centre for Internet and and Society. One is a video interview and the other is in plain text. Both will be of interest to anyone interested in openness. http://newsclick.in/international/aaron-swartz-first-martyr-free-information-movement [video] http://cis-india.org/openness/blog/dml-central-jan-24-2013-nishant-shah-remembering-aaron-swartz-taking-up-the-fight Unfortunately, most science managers in India continue to support the corporate publishers who privatize public knowledge with no thought to the thousands of students, teachers and researchers of India. Not even the leftists in India have raised this issue so far. The least we can do is to mandate open access to publications resulting from all publicly funded research. Arun___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: ARSSF Signs Berlin Declaration
It is good to hear that this Forum has signed the Berlin Declaration. The more important thing will be for each one of these members to make all their research publications open access. And for all their institutions to set up and populate OA repositories. Very few agricultural research and teaching institutions in India have adopted open access. Arun --- On Wed, 6/6/12, Sridhar Gutam gutam2...@gmail.com wrote: From: Sridhar Gutam gutam2...@gmail.com Subject: [GOAL] ARSSF Signs Berlin Declaration To: boai-forum boai-fo...@ecs.soton.ac.uk, GOAL@eprints.org, LIS Forum lis-fo...@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in, american-scientist-open-access-forum american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org, lislfo...@gmail.com, Mailing List Admin mail...@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in, okfn...@lists.okfn.org, open-acc...@lists.okfn.org Date: Wednesday, 6 June, 2012, 14:44 Dear All, It is a great pleasure to inform you that Agricultural Research Services Scientists´ Forum http://www.icar.org.in/en/node/1168 had signed Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/ (w.e.f 18/5/2012) and is added to the list of signatories. The inscription can be found at http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/signatoren/ Thanks Regards Sridhar __ Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP Biotech. (WIPO) Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology) Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture Joint Secretary, Agricultural Research Service Scientists' Forum Convener, Open Access India Rehmankhera, Kakori Post Lucknow 227107, Uttar Pradesh, India Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025 Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136 Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/ Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.co.in/citations?hl=enuser=6W1MSSwJpagesize=100view_op=list_worksis_public_preview=1 -Inline Attachment Follows- ___ 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: Meaning of Open Access
As someone living and working in a not-so-affluent country, I know the value of gratis access to the journal literature of science and scholarship. Let us not keep quibbling over definitions. What should guide us now is the speed with which we can bring as much of the literature as possible into the domain of gratis access. And by that yardstick Green OA seems to be the best option. Believe me as we approach 100% Green OA, the rest of all you want will follow. Arun  From: Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk To: goal@eprints.org Sent: Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 23:59 Subject: [GOAL] Re: Meaning of Open Access So what is really at issue is whether Green Gratis OA is indeed not meaningful enough to warrant lowering the bar in order to mandate it. According to Jan, it is not. According to me, it most definitely is: in fact, it is the first and foremost reason for providing OA at all. What do other GOAL and JISC readers think? There are times when the best that can be achieved is that people agree to disagree. I think this is one of those times. Richard Poynder ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT
Popvox forms cannot be sent unless one mentions the name of a US state and therefore non-US citizens cannot fill in and send their views on any US bill! Arun From: William Gunn william.gunn at gmail.com To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal at eprints.org Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2012, 10:29 Subject: [GOAL] Re: op-ed on Research Works Act in today's NYT The best place for petition-signing is probably Popvox. They (supposedly) provide summary reports directly to legislative offices. https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3699/report William Gunn +1 646 755 9862 http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/ On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm286 at cam.ac.uk wrote: Although I am trying to find time to craft my own response is there any coordinated action on this issue. Somewhere where we can point 10,000 people to and simply get them to add to the count. We did this is Europe for software patents and get 250,000 signatures. I have 30 people tomorrow that I want to urge to sign something but where is the something to sign? If I hadn't been actively involved in OA I wouldn't even heard of HR3699 and RWA. -- 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 at eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL at eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120218/10fa1337/attachment.html
[GOAL] Re: Belgium: Funder's Green OA mandate for 2013
Congratulations Prof. Brentier on taking this bold and innovative step. Now we should persuade funding agencies in other countries to take similar steps. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore, India From: brent...@ulg.ac.be brent...@ulg.ac.be To: GOAL@eprints.org GOAL@eprints.org Sent: Friday, 23 December 2011, 12:16 Subject: [GOAL] Belgium: Funder's Green OA mandate for 2013 It is my pleasure to announce that the Board of Administrators of the FRS-FNRS (Fund for Scientific Research in French-speaking Belgium) has officially decided to use exclusively Institutional Repositories as sources of bibliographic data in support of grant or fellowship submission (except for foreign applicants) starting in 2013 (strongly encouraged in 2012). FRS-FNRS is by far the main funder for basic research in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. Bernard RENTIER Rector of the Université de Liège Vice-President of the FRS-FNRS Chairman, Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] What would I like to see in 2012?
What would I like to see in 2012? I would like to see the Minister of Human Resource Development and the Minister for Science and Technology in New Delhi issue a mandate for open access to all publicly funded research in India. I would like to see the emergence of strong Taxpayer Alliance for Open Access and student groups advocating and implementing open access in all parts of the world, and especially in the developing countries. Arun [ Part 2: Attached Text ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Access problem and affordability
Dana Ruth said: I think there is a tendency to overly generalize the access problem which, in my mind, is primarily a problem with the biomedical literature. Lack of access, by members of the general public who need to go from PubMed to the full text, is obviously very frustrating. My sense, however,  is that few serious researchers or students are truly having a problem with access to the scientific literature. Granted there are problems for non-subscribers desirous of immediate ... seamless ... access.  But with options such as institutional document delivery, visiting or contacting a friend at a subscribing library, direct purchase of individual articles, author websites, institutional repositories, etc. ... I doubt that very many researchers are having a serious problem with access.  On the contrary, a very very large number of researchers around the world are having a serious problem with access. Perceptions depend on one's own circumstances. We are all conditioned by our own experience. Dana lives in California and works at Caltech. Affluent places. Most researchers in the world work in places where their libraries cannot afford even one tenth or one hundredth of Caltech library's collection of books, journals, reports, and paid online sources. For us the access problem is real and huge. [Even in the affluent West, librarians associations started advocating open access when they started feeling the pinch of steep rises in journal subscription costs.] That is why many of us advocate open access repositories. When arXiv was founded, physicists around the world (including those working at Caltech, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford and Cambridge) benefited a great deal. That is why researchers in less-endowed institutions need open access to all research. And the preferred mode is OA repositories. Talking about OA journals, notice that many OA journals in the West (e.g. PLoS, BMC) charge a publication fee from the authors, but hardly any OA journal published from Brazil or India or any other developing country. Access and affordability are both important. One without the other is far less effective.  And when every researcher adopts open access self-archiving, then  everyone, everywhere, will have free online access to all journal articles and the issue of affordability (for subscribing to expensive journals) will diminish in importance. That is where institutional and funder OA mandates become important.  Arun Subbiah Arunachalam Distinguished Fellow Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore, India
Re: correction Re: Off-Line Vote on Moderator Change
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Dear Stevan: I sent a message (to the list) suggesting that you should continue with the good work you are doing and not to worry about the few detractors. But I do not find my name in the list AGAINST STEPPING DOWN. I repeat we in the developing world are greatly indebted to you for bringing in first much awareness to the idea of open access and second such clarity to every debate that has taken place on this list. I recall your talk and interventions at the two-day meeting I had put together to celebrate the contributions made by Gene Garfield (MSSRF, Chennai, 2000). You were able to come all the way despite having several other meetings close to our own (many of them in distant locations) and made a great impact on the 75 or so people who had assembled from different parts of the world. Again your talk at the Indian Academy of Sciences was largely responsible for the Academy later on adopting open access for all its journals. I do not think it is not good for a moderator of a list also to contribute his/her own views. I fully support the suggestion made by Alma Swan: Those who do not like the way you moderate and want a new moderator may start a new list and leave the rest of us to continue with this list you have run so well for all these years. Arun - Original Message From: Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.ca To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008 1:08:53 Subject: correction Re: Off-Line Vote on Moderator Change Stevan - you have my full support as moderator. I greatly appreciate your work as an OA advocate, and your moderation of this list. Please count me in as AGAINST STEPPING DOWN. I am also against an off-line vote; those who do not wish to participate, should leave the list. Apologies if an earlier message of mine gave the wrong impression. Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library. Heather Morrison, MLIS The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com On 7-Oct-08, at 10:59 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On 7-Oct-08, at 11:09 AM, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: As you are aware, my vote is for a change of moderator I am happy to tally the votes if you like Thank you, Sally. Those who wish to vote for or against my stepping down as AmSci Moderator, please send your votes to Sally Morris: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk Those who have already voted online need not vote again. The public tally is the following. I list the names, because these were public votes, but in the offline vote to Sally, you may vote anonymously, but only if you are on the AmSci List, which i will send to Sally. (Votes in parens () are ambiguous, because it is not clear whether they were voting for/against my stepping down or for/against other points that were raised..) FOR STEPPING DOWN 3 + (6?): Jean-Claude Guedon, Sally Morris, Charles Oppenheim, (Zinath Rehana), (Chris Zienlinski), (Andy Powell), (Bernard Lang), (Heather Morrison), (Nick Evans) AGAINST STEPPING DOWN 13 + (2?): Alma Swan, Tony Hey, Andrew Adams, Mike Kurtz, Barbara Kirsop, Tom Cochrane, Connie McEowen, Eloy Rodrigues, Helene Bosc, Michael Eisen, Ana Alice Batista, Peter Suber, Derek Law, (Bill Hooker), (Constantinescu Nicolaie) plus two further offline votes AGAINST STEPPING DOWN (which I will send to Sally separately). Others who wish to vote, please email your vote to Sally directly. Stevan Harnad
Re: correction Re: Off-Line Vote on Moderator Change
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Dear Stevan: I sent a message (to the list) suggesting that you should continue with the good work you are doing and not to worry about the few detractors. But I do not find my name in the list AGAINST STEPPING DOWN. I repeat we in the developing world are greatly indebted to you for bringing in first much awareness to the idea of open access and second such clarity to every debate that has taken place on this list. I recall your talk and interventions at the two-day meeting I had put together to celebrate the contributions made by Gene Garfield (MSSRF, Chennai, 2000). You were able to come all the way despite having several other meetings close to our own (many of them in distant locations) and made a great impact on the 75 or so people who had assembled from different parts of the world. Again your talk at the Indian Academy of Sciences was largely responsible for the Academy later on adopting open access for all its journals. I do not think it is not good for a moderator of a list also to contribute his/her own views. I fully support the suggestion made by Alma Swan: Those who do not like the way you moderate and want a new moderator may start a new list and leave the rest of us to continue with this list you have run so well for all these years. Arun - Original Message From: Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.ca To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008 1:08:53 Subject: correction Re: Off-Line Vote on Moderator Change Stevan - you have my full support as moderator. I greatly appreciate your work as an OA advocate, and your moderation of this list. Please count me in as AGAINST STEPPING DOWN. I am also against an off-line vote; those who do not wish to participate, should leave the list. Apologies if an earlier message of mine gave the wrong impression. Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library. Heather Morrison, MLIS The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com On 7-Oct-08, at 10:59 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On 7-Oct-08, at 11:09 AM, Sally Morris (Morris Associates) sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk wrote: As you are aware, my vote is for a change of moderator I am happy to tally the votes if you like Thank you, Sally. Those who wish to vote for or against my stepping down as AmSci Moderator, please send your votes to Sally Morris: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk Those who have already voted online need not vote again. The public tally is the following. I list the names, because these were public votes, but in the offline vote to Sally, you may vote anonymously, but only if you are on the AmSci List, which i will send to Sally. (Votes in parens () are ambiguous, because it is not clear whether they were voting for/against my stepping down or for/against other points that were raised..) FOR STEPPING DOWN 3 + (6?): Jean-Claude Guedon, Sally Morris, Charles Oppenheim, (Zinath Rehana), (Chris Zienlinski), (Andy Powell), (Bernard Lang), (Heather Morrison), (Nick Evans) AGAINST STEPPING DOWN 13 + (2?): Alma Swan, Tony Hey, Andrew Adams, Mike Kurtz, Barbara Kirsop, Tom Cochrane, Connie McEowen, Eloy Rodrigues, Helene Bosc, Michael Eisen, Ana Alice Batista, Peter Suber, Derek Law, (Bill Hooker), (Constantinescu Nicolaie) plus two further offline votes AGAINST STEPPING DOWN (which I will send to Sally separately). Others who wish to vote, please email your vote to Sally directly. Stevan Harnad
Re: Jean-Claude Gu�don is wrong, and so is Zinath Rehana
I would say the same thing as Alma Swan and Barbara Kirsop, but being a native speakers of English, they have said it far more effectively than I could. Stevan, you are doing a great job. Do not get distracted from your path because of a few detractors. Your postings are very educative and we in the developing world are greatly indebted to you for your tireless efforts to democratise knowledge and open up the flow of information. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] - Original Message From: Ept e...@biostrat.demon.co.uk To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Friday, 3 October, 2008 18:17:30 Subject: Re: Jean-Claude Guédon is wrong, and so is Zinath Rehana Surely all readers of this List will be grateful to the moderator for sparing us this objectionable posting and I subscribe absolutely to the sentiments so well expressed by Alma Swan. The role of a Moderator is no easy path to follow and surely leads to turbulence within this highly vocal and dedicated community, each with their different backgrounds and own professional agendas. But as a person working in 'development', I for one am grateful to Stevan for his frequent reiteration of the basic points, as I am sure are newcomers to the List. As a prime mover in the evolutionary process towards free access to essential research, his tireless efforts are well appreciated by the information-starved world. Barbara Kirsop Electronic Publishing Trust for Development
Re: OA in developing countries
Sally and Jean-Claude may know that ISTIC, Beijing produces Chinese Science Citation Index. A recent study by ISTIC has shown that in terms of publications in journals China now occupies the second rank. Probably the study used the Chinese Science Citation Index. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] - Original Message From: Sally Morris (Morris Associates) sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Thursday, 22 November, 2007 11:27:26 PM Subject: Re: OA in developing countries As I understand it, many scholarly journals from less developed countries are not financially viable through subscriptions and are, as a result, heavily subsidized by their institutions and thus - ultimately - by their governments. In these circumstances, a no-charge OA model makes a great deal of sense - many more bangs for exactly the same bucks! Sally Sally Morris Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy) South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Guédon Jean-Claude Sent: 16 November 2007 09:07 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: RE : OA in developing countries I quite agree with Mike Smith and his concerns about the Third World. Open Access is the only way for Third World countries to see their journals recognized and integrated in the international bibliographies. As a result, Third World scientists will be able to publish on topics of interest to their situation (while responding to the universal criteria of excellence). The Web of Science is notoriously deficient on Third World coverage. The International Bibliography of the Social Sciences is quite as bad. Their coverage is 70% in English in disciplines where national and local languages are still extremely important). People close to the SciELO project in Latin America, Spain and Portugal have published on this topic and are beginning to take measure to counteract these biases. Recently, the people responsible for the Shanghai ranking of universities have decided to use Scopus rather than the Web of Science because the coverage of journals was wider in Scopus. I will not delve on the irony of the situation; neither will I analyze the validity of the Shanghai rankings, but I welcome the multiplication of evaluation and ranking services as they serve to dilute the judgmental monopoly of the (recent) past.. Yes, Open Access will help Third World countries greatly, and not only in placing the articles of Third World scientists in suitable repositories. Jean-Claude Guédon Message d'origine De: American Scientist Open Access Forum de la part de Michael Smith List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: jeu. 15/11/2007 10:22 À: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Objet : OA in developing countries It is good to know that there is considerable interest and work on OA in developing countries, and this is not at all surprising. The intention of my brief post was NOT to say nobody cares about or is doing anything about OA in developing countries (and I certainly did not intend to insult anyone). Rather, my intention was to point out what seemed to be a bias in much of the talk and writing on OA: issues are typically framed solely in terms of the US and Europe. I follow the OA literature at a distance, and this bias seems pretty clear in things that I come across. Mike Smith Dr. Michael E. Smith Professor of Anthropology School of Human Evolution Social Change Arizona State University www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9 http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com/ http://calixtlahuaca.blogspot.com/ ___ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
Re: Problems with Author-side payment
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Author-side payment is only one model of open access journals. India publishes about a hundred OA journals. Not one of them charges author-side fees for publishing a research paper. Indeed, MedKnow Publications, Bombay, produces more than 40 OA journals and it actually makes profit. Dr Sahu, the CEO of MedKnow, has given many talks on the business model followed by the company. Subbiah Arunachalam - Original Message From: Arthur Sale a...@ozemail.com.au To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Wednesday, 14 November, 2007 8:34:19 AM Subject: Re: Problems with Author-side payment Michael I think you have totally lost the plot. Those of us who write frequently about open access are entitled to feel offended by your statement that we ÿÿignore the current financial plight of research in most of the world todayÿÿ. We are well aware of it ÿÿ myself particularly living in a region surrounded by small countries with even more minute research budgets than many countries in Latin America . The focus of the open access movement is to provide open access to research articles through so-called ÿÿGreen OAÿÿ. In other words ÿÿ free to the author, free to the authorÿÿs institution apart from a small repository cost, and free to world-wide readers. The setup costs for small repositories is probably well within the reach of even very small universities (say $US5,000 to $10,000) or they can form consortia to share these costs such as the University of the South Pacific. The idea that Open Access Journals will provide open access in reasonable time is an illusion. There is no sign of this happening. However, even accepting that, many - perhaps the majority of this small group of journals - do not levy author-side fees and are otherwise funded. Note that I do not use the term author-fees nor author-payment. Authors almost never pay these charges, whether they are levied by open access journals or as page charges by subscription journals. We should talk about author-side fees as opposed to reader-side fees. When we reach the stage of having a majority of journals which have changed their business models from reader-side fees to author-side fee, then the debate in university libraries will be on in earnest regarding the transfer of funds from one type of payment to the other. Until then, there is no need to worry, and especially (a) the transition will be driven by economic issues outside academic control and (b) since after the transition overall publication costs are likely to decline. Arthur Sale Professor of Computer Science University of Tasmania From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Michael Smith Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2007 1:52 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Problems with Author-side payment The practice of author payment for open access journals may work for the hard sciences, but it presents major difficulties for various categories of scholars, including: (1) social sciences and humanities, where grants are smaller and fewer than in the natural and physical sciences. (2) graduate students and younger scholars. (3) scholars in the third world. I work closely with authors in Mexico , and in my field (Mexican archaeology) an author-pay model is simply unworkable. Archaeologists and other scholars in Latin America barely have enough funds to carry out their research, and funding for journal author charges does not exist (except possibly in a very small number of venues). This is the situation in most of the third world today in many disciplines. The author-pay model puts people in the above categories (and others) at a serious disadvantage. It would effectively leave out an entire sector of scholarship in the third world. Panglossian arguments about convincing funding agencies to pay for author charges, or transferring university library budgets from subscriptions to author charges, ignore the current financial plight of research in most of the world today. Mike Smith Dr. Michael E. Smith Professor of Anthropology School of Human Evolution Social Change Arizona State University www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9 http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com/ http://calixtlahuaca.blogspot.com/ Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.
Re: T.B. Rajashekar, Indian Open Access Pioneer: 1954-2005
received from within the country and elsewhere is an indication of the regard he had earned. Once he remarked to his students, what mattered in life was what one left behind for others to remember and continue. By that yardstick he has done extremely well. The best tribute the LIS professionals in this country could pay to Raja is to set up institutional open access archives as soon as possible and fill them with papers, modernize their curricula and teach their students the values practiced by him. Subbiah Arunachalam N Balakrishnan - Subbiah Arunachalam is Distinguished Fellow, M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai 600 113, India N Balakrishnan is Chairman, Information Sciences Division, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India ___ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Re: Six Open Access Talks April - June 2005
Good to hear that many institutions in different countries are taking the lead. I am happy to see the OAA movement truly emerging as a bottom-up participatory movement. Now the chances of success are pretty high. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] --- Derek Law d@strath.ac.uk wrote: And the University of Minho will be holding a seminar on May 12-13 to try and stimulate a national initiative in Portugal. Derek Law ___ Professor Derek Law Turnbull Building University of Strathclyde 155 George Street Glasgow G1 1RD United Kingdom Tel: +44 141 548 4997 From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Stevan Harnad Sent: Fri 01/04/2005 02:42 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Six Open Access Talks April - June 2005 Six Open Access Talks April - June 2005: Indiana University 4-5 April 2005: 1. Open Access Scientometrics Networks and Complex Systems, Monday, 4 April http://vw.indiana.edu/talks-spring05/ 2. Maximizing Research Impact Through Institutional Self-Archiving. Rob Kling Center for Social Informatics Speaker Series. Indiana University, Tuesday 5 April 2005. http://www.slis.indiana.edu/research/colloq_readingss05.html#harnad University of Maryland (College Park) 1 May 2005: 3. Institutional repository models: What works and what doesn't. DASER-2 Summit: Digital Archives for Science Engineering Resources. http://www.daser.org/program.html University of Goettingen, Germany 23-24 May 2005: 4. Designing and Implementing University and Research Institution Self-Archiving Policy Dini Workshop on Open Access http://rdd.sub.uni-goettingen.de/wiki/DINIopenaccessworkshop/DINIopenaccessworkshop Quebec, Canada, June 2 2005: 5. Keynote. The green and gold roads to maximizing research access and impact International Association of Technological University Libraries http://www.bibl.ulaval.ca/iatul2005/Harnad_Stevan_pres.html University of Vienna, Austria 15-16 June 2005: 6. Keynote. Open Access and the Author Give-Away/Non-Give-Away Distinction Freedom of Information and Open Access. Chaos Control 2005. University of Vienna/School of Law, the Austrian Academy of Science and the Danube University, Krems. 15-16 June 2005. http://www.chaoscontrol.at/ Stevan Harnad AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM: A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005) is available at: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/ To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address: http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output, please describe your policy at: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY: BOAI-1 (green): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal http://romeo.eprints.org/ OR BOAI-2 (gold): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when a suitable one exists. http://www.doaj.org/ AND in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article in your institutional repository. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ http://archives.eprints.org/ Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: Will the RCUK support OA?
If the research councils in the UK are keen to go ahead with promoting and implementing OAA and if they need additional funding for this purpose and if it does not come from the treasury, then we should persuade organizations such as the Wellcome Trust and Andrew Mellon Foundation to provide the funds needed. After all the funds needed are rather small. We should also mobilise public support in the UK (and elsewhere) and persuade taxpayers to demand that research paid out of their taxes should be made publicly available for free. Arun --- Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: Re-posted from Peter Suber's Open Access News, Thursday 24 March 2005. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_03_20_fosblogarchive.html#a68615476714393 Will the RCUK support OA? The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee.cfm has issued its report on The Work of the Research Councils UK (dated March 16 but not released online until March 23). http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/scrutinyreport.pdf Ever since the government rejected (November 2004) the committee's OA recommendations (July 2004), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm we've wondered whether the independent RCUK might adopt some of those recommendations on its own authority. http://www.stm-assoc.org/conferences/Goldstein.ppt The new committee report is the first official sign that the RCUK might do just that Excerpt (§28, p. 16): 'We have already reported on the lengths that the Government went to in ensuring that there was only one response to our Report on scientific publications in 2004. The Research Councils, to whom many of our recommendations were directed, did not all share the view of Government expressed in the Government Response. They have since indicated that they are to set out their own policy, which is likely to be based on principles placing a high value on the public accessibility of publicly-funded research. Lord Sainsbury told us that Research Councils were totally independent in their capacity to make policy on this front. He added that, as Government funds the Councils, inevitably there is some influence in terms of their performance and we have a responsibility to monitor performance. They are independent. They take that independence very seriously and, if we overstep the mark, they tell us to go away. OST confirmed that Research Councils were free to implement their policy, provided that it was funded from within their existing allocations. OST is well aware that, given Research Councils' existing commitments and the levels of funding required to pursue any change of approach, the Research Councils would be unable to proceed properly without Government support. In view of their reliance on Government funding, there is an obvious and unhealthy difficulty for the Research Councils in arguing strongly against a reluctance by Government to support a policy which the Councils believe will be of benefit to the research community.' Re-posted from Peter Suber's Open Access News, Thursday 24 March 2005. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_03_20_fosblogarchive.html#a68615476714393 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Ann Okerson on institutional archives
Friends: Ann Okerson weighs the pros and cons of OA for US research libraries, noting that institutional repositories are likely to be expensive, and their focus in the U.S. is likely to be on locally produced scholarly materials other than articles. Consequently: It is unlikely that under this kind of scenario in the US, scattered local versions of STM articles would compete effectively with the completeness or the value that the publishing community adds. She also suggests that library cost savings resulting from OA journals are unlikely, unless substantial production cost reductions can be realised by many categories of publisher. - in Serials: The Journal for the Serials Community 18(1)(2005). Why does Ann Okerson, a respected and knowledgeable US academic librarian, think that institutional repositories will be expensive? What are the facts? Will leading institutions that have set up institutional archives tell her and others how much does it cost to set up archives and run them. Arun
Re: NIH public-access policy finally released (fwd)
Well said Les! Irrespective what agencies such as NIH are willing to do, individual researchers and their institutions should set up institutional OA archives and as more and more such archives come into being and get populated with refereed papers we will move towards the goal of universal OAA. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] --- Leslie Carr l...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: After all this speculation I have to say that my quibble is not with the policy as stated (though it is undoubtedly flawed in expression and implementation) but with the aims of the policy which are to 1) create a stable archive of peer-reviewed research publications resulting from NIH-funded research to ensure the permanent preservation of these vital published research findings 2) secure a searchable compendium of these peer-reviewed research publications that NIH and its awardees can use to manage more efficiently and to understand better their research portfolios, monitor scientific productivity, and ultimately, help set research priorities; 3) make published results of NIH-funded research more readily accessible to the public, health care providers, educators, and scientists. That the primary declared aim is irrelevant to open access (let the journal publishers preserve their output) is an inauspicious basis for an OA policy. That the second aim can be achieved without any open access whatsoever (a bibliographic database would suffice) is still less encouraging. That More Ready Access (rather than Open Access) to scientific results by scientists is only admitted at the final word in the last aim is completely perplexing. That the man on the Clapham omnibus (as we refer to Joe Public on this side of the Atlantic) is given greater priority in access to scientific research than the people who are engaged in scientific research is just self-defeating when devising a policy which is addressed to scientists and which is supposed to make their research more effective! No wonder the resulting policy is hardly a clarion call for open access. But don't pin the blame on the policy, direct it at the terms of reference! If you want a strong OA policy from the NIH, get them to admit that OA is what they consider important! (Of course, an interoperable network of OA repositories, maintained by research institutions and their funders, will indirectly provide everything that the NIH's current set of aims lays out. And, as we have seen in the UK, it may be expedient to remind Universities that maintaining a managed archive of their own research outputs has innumerable benefits for the institution as well as the researcher. But still, to put Open Access as the last priority seems so deliberately awkward as to require some kind of censure!) --- Les Carr ___ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: University of Southampton to provide free access to academic research online
Congratulations to the University of Southampton. We have always enjoyed reading the powerful writings of Stevan Hranad and we (at the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai, India) had the privilege of having Les Carr for a whole week early this year when he conducted two workshops on open archives using EPrints software. We were touched by his friendly and courteous behaviour and amazed at his commitment and deveotion to duty. Arun --- Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: News from the University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/news/667 Ref:04/199 15 December 2004 University of Southampton to provide free access to academic research online -- The University of Southampton is to make all its academic and scientific research output freely available. A decision by the University to provide core funding for its Institutional Repository establishes it as a central part of its research infrastructure, marking a new era for Open Access to academic research in the UK. Until now, the databases used by universities to collect and disseminate their research output have been funded on an experimental basis by JISC (the Joint Information Systems Committee). The University of Southampton is the first in the UK to announce that it is transitioning its repository from the status of an experiment to an integral part of the research infrastructure of the institution. 'This decision by the University marks a real milestone in the Open Access initiative,' says Dr Leslie Carr. 'At Southampton we have a significant headstart since we created the EPrints software that is used by many UK universities, but we expect and indeed hope that others will soon give similar status to their own archives.' Dr Carr is Technical Director of the open source EPrints.org software, which is now used by around 150 repositories worldwide. Southampton established its repository (http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/) in 2002 as part of the JISC TARDis project (Targeting Academic Research for Deposit and Disclosure), to explore issues surrounding the Open Access paradigm. The repository provides a publications database with full text, multimedia and research data. 'We see our Institutional Repository as a key tool for the stewardship of the University's digital research assets,' said Professor Paul Curran, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University. 'It will provide greater access to our research, as well as offering a valuable mechanism for reporting and recording it. 'The University has been committed to Open Access for many years. The fact that we are now supporting it with core funding is another tangible step towards its full achievement.' The Southampton repository will now become a service of the University Library in partnership with the University's Information Systems Services and its School of Electronics and Computer Science (who host the JISC-funded software development team). Acknowledging the success of the partnership between the Library, Information Systems Services and the Schools, the Librarian, Dr Mark Brown, said: 'Collaboration between services and academic groups has been the key element in the success of the project. The Institutional Repository will now become an integral part of the electronic library service at Southampton.' Ends Notes for Editors: 1. For further information on E-prints, Open Access and the digital libraries project, see http://www.eprints.org, for further information on the Southampton repository, see http://eprints.soton.ac.uk 2. Professor Stevan Harnad, regarded by many as the founder of the Open Access movement, has been successfully leading the debate from the University's School of Electronics and Computer Science over a number of years, and has argued forcefully for its adoption by the academic community worldwide. The School of Electronics and Computer Science already has the most populated online institutional archive in the UK. 3. The University of Southampton is a leading UK teaching and research institution with a global reputation for leading-edge research and scholarship. The University has over 20,000 students and over 5000 staff. Its annual turnover is in the region of £270 million. For further information: Dr Mark Brown, Librarian, University of Southampton (tel.023 8059 2677; email m...@soton.ac.uk) Dr Les Carr, School of Electronics and Computer Science (tel.023 8059 4479) Joyce Lewis, Communications Manager, School of Electronics and Computer Science (tel.023 8059 5453, email j.k.le...@ecs.soton.ac.uk) - Sarah Watts Media Relations Manager University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ Tel. +44(0)23 8059 3807 Email s.a.wa...@soton.ac.uk ___ ALL-NEW
Re: Critique of APS Critique of NIH Proposal
Friends: It is difficult to believe that learned bodies such as APS and AAI and the legal luminaries appointed by them could make such dubious arguments, each one of which has been shown to be utterly untenable by Stevan. I wonder if this could be a ploy to confuse US legislators with some legal arguments, even if they cannot stand scrutiny, and delay the process. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] --- Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Liblicense-L Listowner wrote: See: http://www.the-aps.org/news/nihaccesscomments.htm This site contains a short, though complex, summary of legal issues raised by the NIH proposal. From the legally minded on this list, any comments? Ann Okerson/Yale Library Here is a critique, as ordered: == [truncated]
Re: Wellcome Trust statement on open access
The Wellcome Trust deserves praise for its continuing support to the Open Access movement. The Trust would do well to accept the recommendation of Prof. Stevan Harnad and decide to support authors depositing their papers in their own institutional archives rather than just a centralised archive. The relative merits are now well known. Subbiah Arunachalam MS Swaminathan Institute, Chennai Trustee, Electronic Publishing Trust for Development
Re: How To Support Institutional OA Archive Start-Up and OA Content Provision
Friends: Stevan Harnad suggests how donor agencies can facilitate setting up interoperable institutional archives. We can adopt his suggestions for setting up such archives in India. Of course, one need not trouble the Southampton team for help; NCSI at IISc has all the expertise and experience needed. Indeed, Dr Rajashekar has introduced some welcome improvements to the Eprints software. Subbiah Arunachalam MS Swaminathan Institute, Chennai Trustee, Electronic Publishing Trust for Development -Original Message- From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 6:36 PM To: AmSci Forum Cc: liblicens...@lists.yale.edu Subject: [BOAI] How To Support Institutional OA Archive Start-Up and OA Content Provision On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Jean-Claude Guedon wrote: Stevan, How would you go about funding the conversion of individual institutions such as universities? How would you use funding to achieve the implementation of official institutional self-archiving *policies*? As a member of the Information Sub-Board of OSI, I would be interested in seeing a series of concrete tactics and strategies in this regard. I am delighted that OSI asks, at last! The answer is quite simple, and completely analogous to the rationale for the funding that is already being provided and recommended by OSI, JISC and others in order to help start up and fill OA journals: (I) First, determine the start-up cost of creating an institutional OA Archive (including any requisite departmental/disciplinary modularization and customisation). (Southampton can help provide you with the actual figures; they have the most extensive experience with this.) (II) Second, offer to institutions -- exactly the way it is now being offered to journals and to authors -- to subsidise all or part of the cost of creating the archive as well as of depositing the papers, but only: (III) ON CONDITION that the institution adopts and implements an official self-archiving policy http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php If you wish, Southampton University can also provide an instructional/informational package on institutional self-archiving consisting of: (i) the OSI Handbook on how and why to create and fill Institutional OA Archives http://software.eprints.org/handbook/ (ii) information on the size of the OA citation-impact advantage to be expected from self-archiving http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html (iii) information on the current growth rate in the number and size of institutional OA archives http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php (iv) information on journals' self-archiving policies http://romeo.eprints.org/ (v) information on other institutions' self-archiving policies: http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php (vi) information on how institutional OA self-archiving databases can be used to measure and evaluate individual and institutional research performance and impact: http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi (vii) information on how to answer users' prima facie questions about self-archiving http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ (viii) information on current national initiatives to mandate self-archiving: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/3990 3.htm http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?db_id=cp108r_n=hr636.108sel=TOC_33 8641 (ix) Powerpoints for archive administrators and users, explaining the rationale for self-archiving http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.ppt And last, here are 5 of the reasons for OSI (and other funders interested in supporting OA) to subsidise institutional OA archive start-up costs: (1) The cost of subsidising the conversion of an institution to OA self-archiving is far less than the cost of subsidising the conversion of a journal to OA-publishing. (2) The return -- in annual number of OA articles -- on subsidising the conversion of one institution to self-archiving is far greater than the return on converting one journal, and far more likely to propagate to other institutions of its own accord. (3) Converting one institution to OA self-archiving (unlike converting one journal to OA publishing) propagates over all institutional departments/disciplines. (*This is also the reason why it is so important that the national self-archiving mandates should be for distributed institutional self-archiving, as recommended by the UK Select Committee, rather than for central self-archiving, as recommended by the US House Committee.*) (4) The cost -- per resulting OA article -- of subsidising author OA self-archiving (by providing a start-up proxy archiving service to help or do it for them
On Distinguishing Open Access Self-Archiving from Open Access Journal Publishing
Friends: Again the focus is on open access publishing! And the easier and far superior path of open access self-archiving will get further relegated to the background by such discussions. If Inge Kaul and Vikas Nath are really interested in promoting public good and want to enhance access to scholarly knowledge for scientists in the developing countries, they should STOP this discussion on open access publishing and START disseminating the tremendous value of open access institutional archiving! Take one single fact. Over 90% of over 8,000 journals surveyed permit some form of institutional archiving - either preprint or postprint or both or even the PDF version of the paper as it appeared in the journal. These journals include those published by leading commercial publishers. And yet only a few authors are archiving their papers. http://romeo.eprints.org/stats. Kaul and Nath should join those who are trying to enlarge this constituency. They should lobby for support to the UK House of Commons Committee's recommendations for mandatory archiving of papers. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm Regards. Subbiah Arunachalam MS Swaminathan Institute, Chennai Trustee, Electronic Publishing Trust for Development -Original Message- From: Vikas Nath [mailto:vikas.n...@undp.org] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 4:51 PM To: Knowledge Management for International Development Organisations Subject: Invitation- eForum on OPEN ACCESS: Open Access to Scholarly Publications: A model for enhanced knowledge management? Dear Colleagues at km4Dev, This electronic event may be of interest to members of this list as it pertains to managment of knowledge in scholarly journals. We invite you to participate in the upcoming eForum on OPEN ACCESS TO SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS: A MODEL FOR ENHANCED KNOWLEDGE MANGEMENT? hosted by the global public goods Network (gpgNet). http://www.gpgnet.net/topic08.php The eForum will run from 20 September through 4 October 2004. To subscribe to this forum, send a blank email to: subscribe-gpgnet...@groups.undp.org mailto:subscribe-gpgnet...@groups.undp.org or, go to: http://groups.undp.org/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=gpgnet-oa http://groups.undp.org/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=gpgnet-oa There exists a rapidly expanding stock of scientific knowledge. Yet, access to this pool of knowledge is often difficult. A primary reason for this is the relatively high price of scholarly journals, their printed and their web-based versions. This situation, it can be argued is both inequitable and inefficient. Initiatives have been undertaken to demonstrate that scientific knowledge need not necessarily be published in forms that make access expensive - or even impossible. It could be provided free of charge - through open access to it - without detrimental effect on scientific knowledge production and preserving the peer-review process that is key to validate scientific results. With open access, fees to meet the publishing costs - when required - are paid up front when articles are accepted by a journal, rather than by the readers. Access to the journal is then provided for free. Today, about 5% of academic publishing follows the open-access model. But the model is quickly gaining ground, including among both for-profit (BioMedCentral -BMC) and not-for-profit (Public Library of Science PloS) publishers. - The key points suggested for the debate are: 1. What are the main pros and cons of open-access scholarly publishing? 2. Thinking in particular of scholars in developing countries (and the fact that research grants may not be as easily available for them than for industrial-country scholars), could they face a new disadvantage? What sources will be available to pay these fees when authors cannot get their funder or employer to pay them? Will all open-access journals be able to waive processing fees in cases of economic hardship, as PLoS and BMC do? Should the international aid community maintain a fund/facility to help meet these costs? 3. Is the open-access model of publishing more likely to be successful in some than in other fields? What would determine the likely success? 4. Could the open-access model of knowledge management be applied beyond scholarly academic publishing? -- To aid debate on the topic, read a detailed overview of how open access to scholarly publications works by Peter Suber, Open Access Project Director at Public Knowledge, Washington, D.C, available at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm Also read how the Budapest Open Access Initiative defines Open Access at http://www.soros.org/openaccess Join us for this debate and share with us - and the global public - your observations on this topic. Inge Kaul Director Office
Re: Please provide publisher/journal self-archiving policies for Romeo Directory
[Amsci Moderator's note: Reply follows below query] Stevan may kindly clarify if all the 11,000 journals (from 97 publishers) surveyed so far allow self-archiving. If not does the 84% still hold good, or has this number also changed with the increase in the number of journals surveyed. thanks. Arun REPLY: Yes, romeo.eprints.org already has an estimate from the Ulrich's data for 10,673 journals http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Romeo/romeosum.html indicating that the percentage green for the total sample of 97 publishers surveyed to date will be about the same as for the 87 publishers whose journal lists we have alreday collected. If anything, the final percentage green for the sample of 97 looks as if it may be somewhat higher than the estimate based on Ulrich's. See below the journal counts for the 10 publishers for whom we are still in the process of collecting the individual journal-names) http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers.html I have myself just this minute found and added the number of journals published by each of the 10 missing publisher, based on their website listings. Note that the total number of journals will be less than the Ulrichs estimate (and my prior projection from that estimate to 11,000). The Ulrichs data probably included some double-counts (journals sold in parts). The total Romeo sample to date will hence be about 8800 journals. Note that this intentionally leaves out most of the 1149 gold journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), http://www.doaj.org/ even though all gold journals are also green! The reason is that these are two different samples, and the DOAJ sample is probably closer to being the *total* number of gold journals, whereas the Romeo Green survey is really merely a *sample* -- although it does already include most of the core journals. (There is an overlap of a very small number of publishers that are on both lists, e.g., BMC.) Publishers as well as those who know publishers' self-archiving policies are encouraged to enlarge the Romeo sample by registering the policy at the SHERPA site http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeoupdate.php and (please!) also listing the journals at the romeo,eprints site: http://romeo.eprints.org/corrections.php Journal counts for the 10 remaining publishers: American Association for the Advancement of Science (1) (GREEN) BMJ Publishing Group (30) (GREEN) Lippincott, Williams Wilkins (287) (GRAY) School of Management, University of Bath (?) (GRAY) Institute of Mathematical Statistics (4 or 7) (GREEN) Annual Reviews (37 or 47) (GREEN) Johns Hopkins University Press (50+) (GREEN) Australian Computer Society Inc (1) (GREEN) Australian Academic Press (10) (GREEN) Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (8) (GRAY) Stevan Harnad
Open Access Workshop in China, June 2004
Friends: Dr Paul Uhlir, National Academy of Sciences, requested me to post this preliminary agenda of the International Workshop on Open Access to Scientific Data to be held later this month in Beijing. Look at the people and institutions involved! That shows how much importance China gives to open access. China is forging ahead! Subbiah Arunachalam MS Swaminathan Institute, Chennai Trustee, Electronic Publishing Trust for Development Draft 2 June 2004 International Workshop on Strategies for Preservation of and Open Access to Scientific Data Beijing Golden Resources Hotel, Beijing China, 22-24 June 2004, Jointly Organized by: Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MOST) CODATA Task Group on the Preservation and Archiving of ST Data in Developing Countries Chinese National Committee for CODATA and U.S. National Committee for CODATA Other Co-organizers in China * Department of International Cooperation, Chinese Association of Science and Technology of China (CAST) * Department of International Cooperation, Chinese Academy of Science and Technology (CAS) * Department of International Cooperation, National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) Sponsors * Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MOST) * Chinese Academy of Sciences(CAS) * Chinese National Natural Science Foundation(NSFC) * United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) * International Data Committee for Science and Technology (CODATA) * US National Institutes of Health (NIH) * US National Science Foundation (NSF) * Open Society Institute Chairman Academician Xu Guanhua: President of Ministry of Science and Technology of China Co-Chairs * Academician Chen Yiyu: Chair of the China National Committee for CODATA, President of National Natural Science Foundation of China * Roberta Balstad Miller: Chair of the US National Committee for CODATA, Director of Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University, USA * Academician Cheng Jinpei: Vice President of Ministry of Science and Technology of China * Liu Yanhua: Vice President of Ministry of Science and Technology of China * Academician Hu Qiheng: Vice President of Chinese Association of Science and Technology (CAST) * Academician Qin Dahe: President of Metreology Bureau of China * Academician Liu Depei: President of Chinese Academy of Medicine, Vice President of Chinese Academy of Engineering * Shuichi Iwata: President of CODATA, Professor of Tokyo University, Japan * Academician Sun Honglie: Vice President of CODATA, Chinese Academy of Sciences * Academician Sun Shu: Director of Department of Earth Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Director of Expert Committee of China Scientific Data Sharing Program, Chinese Academy of Sciences * Zhang Xian'en: Director of Department of Basic Research, Ministry of Science and Technology of China * Steve Rossouw: Member, CODATA Executive Committee Steering Committee Co-Directors * Zhang Xian'en: Director of Department of Basic Research, Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Director of Implementation Committee of China Scientific Data Sharing Program * William Anderson: Co-Chair, CODATA Task Group on the Preservation and Archiving of ST Data in Developing Countries Associate Directors * Teng Mianzhen: Associate Director of Department of Basic Research, Ministry of Science and Technology of China * Shen Zongqi: Associate Director of Department of Infrastructure and Grant, Ministry of Science and Technology of China Members * Guo Huadong: Associate Secretary General of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Director of the Department of International Cooperation, Chinese Academy of Sciences * Chen Jun, Director of Information Center for Fundamental Geography, President of China Association for Geographical Information Systems, Academician of Euro-Asia Academy of Sciences * Huang Dingcheng: Professor of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Associate Director of Expert Committee of China Scientific Data Sharing Program * Yan Baoping: Professor and Director of Internet Center of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Vice Chair of China National Committee for CODATA * Liu Chuang: Professor and Director, Global Change Information and Research Center, Institute of Geography and Natural Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Co-Chair of CODATA Task Group on the Preservation and Archiving of ST Data in Developing Countries * Peter Arzberger: Executive Director of the National Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure at the University of California, San Diego * Robert Chen: Assistant Director of Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University; Member, CODATA Executive
Re: How many journals sell authors Open Access by the article?
In India journals published by the Indian Academy of Sciences and Indian National Science Academy are entirely open access and authors are NOT CHARGED AT ALL. Thus these are free for readers and authors pay nothing. However, subscribers to the print version pay an annual subscription which is ridiculously low compared to the subscription costs of even journals published by professional societies in USA and Europe, let alone commercial publishers. There are other such journals as well. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] --- Thomas Walker t...@ufl.edu wrote: I'm trying to update what I know about sales of open access by the article. Here is what I'd like to know: What publishers sell free access by the article, in what journals, and at what price? Where free access is sold by the article, what percent of authors buy it? Here is what I already know, organized by publisher. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LIMNOLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY Journal: Limnology and Oceanography How long offered: since January 1999 Price: Cost of 500 hard copy reprints Percent of authors buying OA: 46% (first two issues of 2004) ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA Journals (4): Annals of the Entomological Society of America, Journal of Economic Entomology, Environmental Entomology, and Journal of Medical Entomology How long offered: since January 2000. Price: 75% of the cost of 100 hard copy reprints; i.e., $120 for an 8-page article in 2003. Percent of authors buying OA: 62% (all of 2003) Estimated net revenues from sales of Open Access Reprints in 2003: $53,297. AMERICAN PHYSIOLOGICAL SOCIETY Journal: Physiological Geonomics How long offered: since July 2003 Price: $1500 per article. Percent of authors buying OA: none noted for most recent three issues [have asked for data] COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS Journals (3): Development, Journal of Cell Science, Journal of Experimental Biology How long offered: since January 2004 Price: $800 per article (special introductory rate). Percent of authors buying OA: none noted for most recent three issues of JEB [have asked for data] 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/ Prior AmSci topic thread on this topic: Should Publishers Offer Free-Access Services? (1998) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0017.html ___ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Re: Author Publication Charge Debate
Friends: I have worked with a lot of authors in Kuwait (who work outside Kuwait University) who are unable to pay author tolls. Imagine what the scenario will be like in a poor third world country? says Suhail. There is no problem here as there are many journals which do not charge author tolls such as CURRENT SCIENCE, Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences, and so on. Many physicists around the world (including physicists in India and many other developing countries) send their papers to arXiv and the papers are instantaneously available for anyone with web access to read and comment upon. It is only much later that these physicists send their papers for publication in a journal. While arXiv is a centralised archive, the current trend is to set up interoperable institutional archives. Once a paper is placed on such open archives, the author is assured of some visibility for his/her findings. Usually, papers placed in arXiv get comments from physicists from different parts of the world, thus helping the author to revise and improve his paper before he formally submits it to a journal - which may be toll access or open access. Could Suhail kindly provide a few actual examples of poor country scientists' papers, the journals that refused them because of inability to pay author fees, and the journals where the papers eventually appeared? Often, journal editors waive author fees for developing country authors. Jan Valterop may please let us know if BMC waives author fees for developing country scientists. I live and work in India. I have NEVER worked outside India. I have worked both as a laboratory scientist and as an information scientist, and I have been an editor of (several) scientific journals published by CSIR and the Indian Academy of Sciences. I have also served on many international refereed journals - both print and online. I have devoted much time thinking about improving access to information in developing countries and to help increase the visibility of science performed by scientists in the developing countries. I find open access (both open archives and OA journals) to be a very good thing to have happened. Best wishes. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] ___ BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
Re: Author Publication Charge Debate
Friends: Mr Albert Henderson wrote: There was no problem linking library and RD spending during the 1960s, when political pressures demanded better science. It would seem fundamental to any school child that spending on libraries used to prepare RD must be a part of RD policy. It was only after Western men walked on the moon that universities felt comfortable cutting money from libraries and sending it to the bottom line. The money is there, in the surpluses that show up clearly in tax reports and in the statistics of income and expenditure. Mr Henderson talks about increasing funds for libraries in the context of USA and other rich countries. What about the rest of the world? ARL and SPARC have gathered considerable amount of statistics to show that the increase in cost per page of most journals is much higher than can be justified merely on the basis of inflation. There was the famous litigation between a commercial publisher and a professional society after an article comparing journal prices appeared in Physics Today. Clearly, publishing firms needed a jolt and that was what happened when libraries took tough stands against leading commercial publishers, and scientists resigned from the editorial boards of costly commercial journals to start less expensive alternatives journals. Even in the rich countries, most people felt that the publishers were taking the academic community for a ride. Mr Henderson wants funds to libraries to be increased. What do libraries do? They provide access to information needed by researchers, faculty and students and other clients. If the information can be provided by means of open archives at a much lower cost than through printed (or electronic) journals, I think we should accept the less expensive alternative. We can save money and use it for other purposes useful to the faculty and students instead of giving it away to some publisher. Arun ___ BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk
Re: Author Publication Charge Debate
Friends: Suhail has decided not to submit any paper to any OA journal, because they are just as extremely commercial and just as obscenely priced. Suhail is annoyed with PLoS and BMC journals because they charge author fees and many authors in poor countries cannot afford author fees. But then they are not the only open access journals in the world. I welcome him and his colleagues to publish in the journals published by the Indian Academy of Sciences, bangalore, India. No author fees and fully open access. There are many other open access journals which do not charge an author fee. Also, Suhail and colleagues can deposit their published conventional journal papers in interoperable institutional archives or central archives such as arXive. I do not see any reason for being frustrated or dejected. And the solution offered - increasing library budgets so they can subscribe to a larger number of journals - is neither the optimal solution nor can it really solve the problem. I am trying hard to spread the culture of open access in India and I am glad to say that the response so far is good. All of us in the developing world want two things: our papers should be read widely and be visible; we should be able to read everyone else's paper without a toll barrier. Both are possible through open access. Setting up interoperable institutional archives for one's conventional journal publications and publishing one's papers in open access journals, many of which do not ask for an author fee, should satisfy Suhail's needs. Arun
Re: Archivangelism
Dr David Spurrett has shown that if there is a will there is a way! Setting up institutional archives is eventually the best - most cost-effective - solution. All of us - scientists and scholars - should work towards it and persuade our university administrators and policymakers in governments and donor agencies to promote it. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Iain Stevenson wrote: is (a). Implicitly, the publication model of open-access and self-archiving is reflects the publishing culture of Anglo-American STM research, well-funded is with grants that include publication costs and I suspect also salaried is research assistantsa nd post-docs to do the leg-work in archiving. In the is tradition of social science and humanities research, typified by sole is researchers with smallish (or no) grants, self-archiving probably isn't easily is achieved, unless the institution where the worker is based provides, staffs and is pays for a self-archiving system. And where does that leave the self-funded is independent scholar who is still a feature of many of the soft-sciences? I have to disagree. As a researcher in a humanities department, with limited grants, no salaried assistants and no postdocs, I've found no serious obstacles to self-archiving. The software (I have deposited papers in two different archives both of them running eprints) is easy to use, registration simple and clear, and the process of archiving a paper takes very little time. (I'm 'lucky' to work in the philosophy of science and cognitive science, both of which have eprints archives, but I'm presently agitating/archivangelising for my university to set up an institutional archive.) David Spurrett
Re: Op Ed piece to use to promote Open Access
Stevan: Not all 1000 or so open access journals charge the authors' institution a publication fee as do BioMed Central and PLoS. I don't think BMJ charges any fee. Nor does Current Science. Of course, Current Science gets part of its revenue from subscription to the print version and the rest from grants received by the Current Science Association and the Indian Academy of Sciences. At the end of your communication, you may kindly add the appropriate URL for Bioline, which particularly serves journals from developing countries. Regards. Arun --- Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: I have not transferred copyright for this piece (which just appeared in the Montreal Gazette). http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=8e912f55-eb8e-459e-8e7a-a7bd6d8dc995 So I hereby invite anyone who wishes to republish it in order to help promote open access to do so. It is written in a popular style, so if you can place it in any newspapers or magazines, please do go ahead! (I don't care if it appears under my name or generically.) (The full-text below diverges slightly from the published Gazette version, e.g., in the title. -- SH) Let All Knowledge Be Free That Wants to be Free Stevan Harnad http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ Some well-meaning cowboys have noticed a similarity between the World-Wide-Web and the Wild-Wild-West, with its limitless space, free for the taking. They've concluded that the Web Age means we can at last have free access to all knowledge. I wish they had been right, but unfortunately knowledge is produced by people, and not all people want to give away their work for free! The authors of most books, for example, are quite aware that the Web is a medium in which texts can be made accessible to anyone who clicks on them, but they'd rather their readers paid for access. Same is true for singers and song-writers, and for most writers of computer software. Human nature being what it is -- and the demands of daily survival being what they are -- most people would prefer to be paid for their work, regardless of whether their product is physical goods and services or abstract knowledge. If I cannot be paid for it, why bother to do the work at all? But there is one prominent exception. University reseachers are paid to *do* research, but they publish it (in research journals) for free. Unlike all other authors, they don't ask for any fee or royalty for these writings. Why? Because in publishing them they are not looking for sales revenue but for research impact. How many users read, apply, use, build-upon and cite my research? Those are the numbers on which the researcher's career and research-funding depend. So what's the problem then? This knowledge was give-away knowledge already in the paper era. Now that we have the Web, we can give it all away big-time! Not so fast! I said the researchers give it away, but that doesn't mean its users don't have to pay! For the only way to get access -- either on paper or online -- to the contents of the 24,000 research journals in which 2.5 million research articles appear yearly every year is for the would-be user's university to pay for access. And the fact is that the access-tolls are so high that universities can afford access only to a small and shrinking fraction of them. That means that the world's research output is inaccessible to most of its would-be users, despite the fact that it is and always has been an author give-away! This represents a great loss to research, researchers, their institutions, their research funders, and the tax-payers who are paying for it all. It has been estimated that articles that are accessible toll-free on the Web have 336% more research impact than those that are only available via toll-access. (336% may not seem like a large increase, but considering that most research is not cited at all, this figure is actually astronomical.) Why are there still access-blocking tolls, then? So that journals can continuing making ends meet. Why do we still need journals at all, if access can be provided for free on the Web? Because journals provide peer review, which ensures that the research is reliable and correct. The peers who review and certify the articles are qualified experts in the article's field, but they too, like the authors, seek no payment for their work! So the only cost involved is *implementing* the peer review: A qualified editor has to pick the reviewers, the journal has to track the reviewing process, and then the editor has to make sure the author does any recommended revisions. We know what implementing all of that costs: about $500 per paper. But what is the planet -- or rather, those few universities on the planet that can afford access to any given journal -- actually paying in access tolls for the very limited access it gets in return? About $1500 per article on
Re: Op Ed piece to use to promote Open Access
Dear Stevan: You may write such popular articles periodically and send them to feature services who may distribute them to newspapers worldwide. You may also target library science journals. Regards. Arun --- Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: Dear Arun, Thanks for the suggestions: I know not all 1000 OA journals recover costs from author-charges, but this is a very simple general-public article, and I did not want to add needless complications. (People seem to have enough trouble understanding as it is!) Also, Bioline is a very worthy organization, but it is not a no-toll service but a low-toll (and sometimes no-toll) one. Again, this mixes two agendas, and for this article, I wanted to keep it simple: open-access only! Don't worry, I will promote Bioline in the appropriate places! Best wishes, Stevan On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, [iso-8859-1] Subbiah Arunachalam wrote: Stevan: Not all 1000 or so open access journals charge the authors' institution a publication fee as do BioMed Central and PLoS. I don't think BMJ charges any fee. Nor does Current Science. Of course, Current Science gets part of its revenue from subscription to the print version and the rest from grants received by the Current Science Association and the Indian Academy of Sciences. At the end of your communication, you may kindly add the appropriate URL for Bioline, which particularly serves journals from developing countries. Regards. Arun --- Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: I have not transferred copyright for this piece (which just appeared in the Montreal Gazette). http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=8e912f55-eb8e-459e-8e7a-a7bd6d8dc995 So I hereby invite anyone who wishes to republish it in order to help promote open access to do so. It is written in a popular style, so if you can place it in any newspapers or magazines, please do go ahead! (I don't care if it appears under my name or generically.) (The full-text below diverges slightly from the published Gazette version, e.g., in the title. -- SH) Let All Knowledge Be Free That Wants to be Free Stevan Harnad http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ Some well-meaning cowboys have noticed a similarity between the World-Wide-Web and the Wild-Wild-West, with its limitless space, free for the taking. They've concluded that the Web Age means we can at last have free access to all knowledge. I wish they had been right, but unfortunately knowledge is produced by people, and not all people want to give away their work for free! The authors of most books, for example, are quite aware that the Web is a medium in which texts can be made accessible to anyone who clicks on them, but they'd rather their readers paid for access. Same is true for singers and song-writers, and for most writers of computer software. Human nature being what it is -- and the demands of daily survival being what they are -- most people would prefer to be paid for their work, regardless of whether their product is physical goods and services or abstract knowledge. If I cannot be paid for it, why bother to do the work at all? But there is one prominent exception. University reseachers are paid to *do* research, but they publish it (in research journals) for free. Unlike all other authors, they don't ask for any fee or royalty for these writings. Why? Because in publishing them they are not looking for sales revenue but for research impact. How many users read, apply, use, build-upon and cite my research? Those are the numbers on which the researcher's career and research-funding depend. So what's the problem then? This knowledge was give-away knowledge already in the paper era. Now that we have the Web, we can give it all away big-time! Not so fast! I said the researchers give it away, but that doesn't mean its users don't have to pay! For the only way to get access -- either on paper or online -- to the contents of the 24,000 research journals in which 2.5 million research articles appear yearly every year is for the would-be user's university to pay for access. And the fact is that the access-tolls are so high that universities can afford access only to a small and shrinking fraction of them. That means that the world's research output is inaccessible to most of its would-be users, despite the fact that it is and always has been an author give-away! This represents a great loss to research, researchers, their institutions, their research funders, and the tax-payers who are paying for it all. It has been estimated that articles that are accessible toll-free on the Web have 336% more
Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output
India, the sleeping giant, wakes up! The Indian Institute of Science has an institutional archive for well over a year now. It is run well although it had not attracted many faculty and students to deposit their papers. But steps are now promised to improve thesituation. Other leading higher education institutions, particularly the Indian Institutes of Technology, are advised to set up their own (interoperable) archives. last week, the Indian Academy of Sciences held a one-day conference on open access at the national Chemical Laboratory in Pune. Soon the Academy plans to host a workshop for providing training in setting up open archives and open access journals. India is likely to forge ahead in this area and other developing countries (such as China and Brazil) may not like to lag behind. It is likely that the developing world may adopt open access in a large way - faster than the developed world. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] --- Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote: Dear Prof. Rajashekar, Congratulations on the IISc Eprints Archive! http://eprints.iisc.ernet.in/ Here are some replies to your queries: On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Dr. T.B. Rajashekar wrote: We have also interfaced our archive with Greenstone digital library software to support full text searching (not supported by current version of eprint.org software). It is supported in the next eprints.org release. Please contact Chris Gutteridge for the date. (But note that full-text searching is far more useful as a cross-archive service than a within-archive one.) However, self-archiving so far has been extremely sporadic - till today we have only about 70 papers submitted to the archive. I should admit that on our part, we have not promoted the archive vigorously (except for the initial announcement and a poster we brought out sometime back). We intend to go on a promotional drive and we are quite confident of convincing significant number of our researchers (if not all!) the benefits of self-archiving, through promotional seminars and individual contacts. So far that is on a par with most other archives at institutions that have not yet formulated an open-access provision policy. But the further measures you describe sound promising. As a potential model for your institutional policy, I recommend: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html See also: http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/proxy_archive.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0022.gif 3. Track 'clicks' and downloads of papers from the archive and generate statistics in support of improved access and visibility. I believe eprints.org software does not support this feature. We have to find a way to do this - we consider this important. Please contact Chris Gutteridge at eprints.org about this, but also Tim Brody designer of citebase, an opcit/eprints sister project, which does all of that as a cross-archive service: http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search I welcome comments and suggestions about these plans and also other means of improving deposition and visibility of the archive content. I suggest you also ask the eprints-underground and OAI-general lists for suggestions. There is another interesting issue. Some researchers in our institute (e.g. physics and chemistry) ask the question - why the need for archiving in institutional archive if they are already depositing in domain archives like arxiv? How do we address this? Please see the Amsci threads: Central vs. Distributed Archives http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0293.html Central versus institutional self-archiving http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3205.html In a nutshell, all OAI archives are equivalent, but institutional self-archiving policy is more easily and systematically monitored if all research output is self-archived in the institutional archive. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0028.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0044.gif I wish you and your colleagues a Very Happy New Year. Happy New Year to you too! It struck here just as I was replying to your message! Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum (98 99 00 01 02 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy: BOAI-2 (gold): Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal whenever one exists. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals BOAI-1 (green
Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output
Dear Stevan: I spoke about open access at the Annual Meeting of INSA [Indian national Science Academy] and the Centenary Celebration of the National Library of India held at the Asiatic Society, Bombay. The talks were well received. We raised the point that although the Indian Institute of Science has set up an institutional archive, hardly any faculty or student is keen to submit their papers to the archive! Prof. N Balakrishnan, chairman of Information Division at IISc and India's leading authority on digital libraries, felt that researchers do not submit papers to archives because they would like to submit them to high-impact journals. Please write to Prof. Balakrishnan and Prof. M S Valiathan, president of INSA, explaining the ROMEO project and its findings that most journals do not mind accepting papers deposited in institutional archives. Here are their email addresses: ba...@serc.iisc.ernet.in msvaliat...@yahoo.com Thanks and regards. Arun Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
Open Access Side-Event at World Summit on the Information Society
Here is a press release on a meeting to be held in Geneva on 11 December 2003. World Summit on the Information Society http://www.itu.int/wsis/ Open Access Side-Event: http://www.wsis-online.net/smsi/classes/smsi/events/smsi-events-85268/event-view?referer=/event/events-list?showall=t A growing number of scientists worldwide are actively promoting 'open access' to the scientific literature. This means toll-free online access to the full-texts of all refereed research articles. At present, except the fraction of articles for which a suitable open-access journal already exists today (5%), research is only accessible if the researcher's institution can afford to pay for the toll-access journal in which it is published (95%). As a result, most of the potential users of research -- and especially those in developing countries -- are unable to access most research. This represents a great loss to both research-providers and research-users, and hence to the progress and benefits of research itself. Fortunately, the Internet and Web technologies have at last opened up the possibility for those researchers whose institutions cannot afford the toll-access version of any article to use instead the open-access version, self-archived on the author's own institutional website. The provision of open access to their own refereed research output by researchers and their institutions needs systematic worldwide promotion. We are holding a three-hour meeting on open-access provision at Geneva as a side event at WSIS. Please publicise the meeting. More important, read and write about the substantial contribution of open access to the progress and benefits of science. (For some useful information: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ ) Subbiah Arunachalam
InterAcademy Panel on International Issues Mexico, 1-5 December 2003
To all participants of the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues meeting taking place in Mexico, 1-5 December 2003 http://www4.nas.edu/IAP/IAPhome.nsf/weblinks/MGLY-4VQVBB Dear Academicians: Scientists around the world are greatly concerned about the increasing difficulties we face in the matter of accessing information relevant to our research. Journal prices are soaring and even libraries in industrialised countries are forced to cut down on the number of journals they subscribe to. The situation in developing countries including India is much worse. It is for this reason, the Open Access movement is gaining ground. Both BioMed Central and the Public Library of Science are publishing many open access journals. Even in India the Indian Academy of Sciences makes all its 11 journals available free on the Web. But to date only about 600 journals (of about 24,000 refereed scholarly journals) are available for universal free access. Therefore, in addition to promoting open access journals, we need to promote interoperable (OAI-compliant) institutional self archiving of research papers, as suggested by Stevan Harnad. Learned Academies and governments around the world should proactively persuade scientists and scientific institutions around the world, and especially in their home countries, to set up institutional archives and to sign the Berlin Declaration. It is now well understood that research papers which are available on the web are far more visible and cited than papers published in toll access journals. Therefore it is in the interest of the individual scientists, their institutions and funding agencies to promote open access. Please use your collective might as the world's leading academicians to influence governments, donor agencies, vice chancellors of universities and directors of research laboratories around the world to proactively promote open access in their home countries. The WSIS meeting at Geneva in the second week of December provides an opportunity to obtain a worldwide agreement on this important issue. We seek your support. If you are at WSIS, please attend the session on Open Access to Scientific Information: Revolution in Science or Inevitable Scientific Evolution? Thursday, 11 December 2003, 1700 - 2000 hrs, Room T, CERN. http://www.wsis-online.net/smsi/classes/smsi/events/smsi-events-85268/event-view?referer=/event/events-list?showall=t Regards. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam]
Re: Measuring cumulating research impact loss across fields and time
Steven Harnad talked about a study on the relative citation rates of open ccess and toll access articles he is conducting in collaboration with UQaM, Southampton, Oldenburg and Loughborough. When will the results become available? Will there be any interim reports? I am curious to know. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam]
Re: Scientific publishing is not just about administering peer-review
Friends: I understand that BioMed Central charges $500 per paper as cost of publishing expenses, whereas PLos charges $1,500. Why is this large difference? Subbiah Arunachalam --- Fytton Rowland j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: Again, Albert has a point. These publicity activities have a price-tag. Perhaps the rather high author charge that PLoS is levying covers these costs. Incidentally, the brain-machine interface paper got coverage in the daily newspaper in Wellington, New Zealand - which did mention that it was in the first issue of the new PLoS Biology online journal. Fytton. Quoting Albert Henderson chess...@compuserve.com: What is the cost of your unusual publicity campaign? How do you pay for it? Albert Henderson Pres., Chess Combination Inc. Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk
Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)
Dear Sally, In which case why were publishers insisting on transferring copyright ll these days and even asking authors to pay when they wanted to reproduce figures (originally published in papers published in journals) in books (they wrote subsequently)? Regards. Arun --- Sally Morris sec-...@alpsp.org wrote: Actually, I disagree with your statement that ... publishers are likely ... to try to contest it [authors not signing (c) transfer] if it risks becoming the majority case. It's my impression that the number of publishers who do not require copyright transfer is growing, as they realise that they can do just about everything they need to do to safeguard their business without it, given a suitably crafted agreement. Even those who do normally require copyright transfer accept that they can't always get it - not only in the case of Govt authors, but also with employees of certain types of corporate; this certainly doesn't stop them publishing such papers. What they can't do without copyright - as Marty Blume of APS has convincingly pointed out - is to act quite so rapidly or decisively to protect an author's interest in cases of plagiarism or other infringements. Sally Sally Morris, Secretary-General Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Phone: 01903 871686 Fax: 01903 871457 E-mail: sec-...@alpsp.org ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org - Original Message - From: Stevan Harnad har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613) On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Sally Morris made a very good point: Stevan Harnad wrote: sh Most of the existing 24,000 journals would not sh accept to publish public-domain texts I think this is probably inaccurate. I would guess that practically all of those journals do publish works which are currently governed by the Public Domain status of US Government works. Sally is quite right to point out that I had overlooked the fact that many publishers are already at home with the fact that a certain percentage of their authors cannot sign copyright transfer agreements because they are government employees. Effectively, the Sabo Bill, if it passed, would simply increase the percentage of such authors. So it was incorrect on my part to say that they would not accept to publish them: Given the percentage of journal content that is based on US funded research, they would be forced to. But the Bill has not passed yet, and the publishers (and authors) will still have their say. The percentage of authors who did not sign copyright transfer in the past (for this reason, or even for other reasons) was small enough so that publishers could discount it as statistical variation. But publishers are likely, I think, to try to contest it if it risks becoming the majority case. Do they have a valid argument? I think they do, for the simple reason that if the public-domain constraint is being introduced in order to create open access, then it is a far stronger constraint than it needs to be. Merely forcing publishers to allow authors to self-archive accomplishes the very same goal in a far less radical and risky way -- for both publishers and authors. For authors, putting their texts into the public domain leaves them less protected from plagiarism and text-alteration. For publishers, a large increase of public-domain content could easily threaten their viability. In this day and age, all we have to imagine is that another copycat company could systematically (and legally) harvest and aggregate open-access public-domain contents as soon as they appear, and immediately offer them, at cut-rate prices, both online and on-paper. Why subscribe to journal X, which published the contents, if you can subscribe to journal or aggregator Y for the same contents, at a far lower price? (US funded research is a huge chunk of many journals' contents. That's why this Bill is so important. But that's also why it's so important that it should avoid overkill.) Wouldn't exactly the same risk be there if instead of mandating that the contents be public-domain, the Bill mandated only that they be open-access? Definitely not. With just open access, copyright continues to be asserted, whether the author transfers it to the publisher (retaining only the open-access self-archiving right) or merely licenses the content, retaining the copyright. Self-archived contents cannot be harvested and re-sold, online or on-paper. The publisher (or author) could immediately take legal action against that, as before. Self-archiving is the prerogative of the author, not of third parties,
Re: Access-Denial, Impact-Denial and the Developing and Developed World
Friends: I read with interest Rahim Rajan's posting to the CSTD-UNIVERSAL list. The point that the Internet and high bandwidths provide a large enough pipe but what is important is what flows through the pipe is well taken. Also all of us will agree that it is not enough to provide the hardware and Internet connections, but one may also have to think of helping new users to use them effectively and efficiently. This was the case even before Internet came on the scene. In the early 1970s I have conducted several 'user education' programmes at important higher education and research institutions in India using tape-slide programmes produced by some polytechnics in the UK. I have also used material produced by the Chemical Abstracts Service in my programmes. Unfortunately technological advances have exacerbated the gap between the advanced countries and poorer countries in the area of scholarly and scientifc information. One reason for this is the increasing stranglehold private interests have on the 'content'. Take for instance scientific, technical and medical (STM) journals. For profit companies control a large part of the market. The subscription costs of these journals are increasing at a rate faster than the general inflation rate. As a consequence even libraries in the United States felt the pain of the 'serials crisis'. Most developing country academic and research libraries take fewer journals now than before. Except PubMed, no major secondary service is available for free access on the Internet. Of course, there are a few contents page services available for free. This problem of access to literature of science can be solved easily, but somehow we are not trying hard enough. Ask Stevan Harnad and he will tell you how by setting up institutional archives and making them all interoperable (for which the tools and technologies are already available and at no cost) we can make everyone having access to the Internet obtain access to all the world's emerging scientific knowledge. Indeed, he is a true crusader! One problem would still remain. How are we going to provide inexpensive Internet access to scientists and scholars in the poor countries? Bruce Alberts, President of the US National Academy of Science, suggests that even if it means heavy subsidies we should provide the computers and Internet connections to ALL scientists. We should persuade organizations like Unesco, Foundations such as the Ford, Mellon and Rockefeller Foundations, and donor agencies such as DFID and USAID to consider a joint programme that would provide low-cost Internet access to scientists and scholars in the developing world. The forthcoming WSIS is a wonderful opportunity to put forth such a proposal. Together, archiving all worthwhile research papers in an interoperable system and providing computers and Internet connections to those scientists who do not already have them would cost much less than many libraries around the world subscribing to thousands of toll-access journals. There is the issue of peer review now provided by journal editors and publishers. But then, physicists do have informal peer review in the well known archives 'arXiv'. There are also newer models of journal publishing where the costs of producing and distributing the 'journal' is absorbed by someone on the authors' side (e.g. the funding agency which supported the research) and the readers don't pay anything. BioMed Central is a good example. I have articulated my views on this subject in an article I published in the Bulletin of ASIST a few months ago. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] -Original Message- From: Jesus Martinez-Frias [mailto:martinezfr...@mncn.csic.es] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:40 AM To: UNCTAD - Universal Internet Access Subject: [CSTD-UNIVERSAL:2] active discussion Dear colleagues, I was informed that in our discussion list there are about 60 people, who represent 20+different countries, the academia, private sector and governments and NGOs (ICSU). There are also a number of participants from intergovernmental organisations such as the Digital Divide group from the World Bank, UNDP, UNESCO, IADB, SciDev.net. I think it is important to activate the list and any suggestion or remark will be welcome. I encourage you all to break the ice sharing your experiences, case studies, practice examples, etc. Best regards, Jesus Martinez-Frias Moderator, Vice-Chair, UNCSTD - It is estimated that by 2003- almost all decisions made in science and technology, economics and business development will be based on information which has been generated electronically. Many experts have stressed that ICTs are not a magic potion for development or a replacement for real world processes. But the evidence also suggests that ICTs are opening opportunities for renewing democracy, promoting innovation, social and economic development, and making available all citizens with resources
BOAI-1 (self-archiving) and BOAI-2 (open-access journals)
Dr Tonukari wants to know about institutional self archiving. It is simply depositing all papers originating in an institution in an electronic archive that can be accessed by anyone with access to Internet. It is different, slightly, from worldwide archives like arXiv (for physics), Cogprints (for cognitive sciences) and CiteSeer (for computer sciences). Each institution will have its own archive, but all archives will follow standard practices so all of them are interoperable. The world's leading authority in this field is Prof. Stevan Harnad of the University of Southampton. He is a crusader for this cause. In my opinion self archiving is even better than open access journals, if you have to make a choice. But Harnad feels that even if all the research is made available through archiving, it will be necessary to have journals. For details, please refer to the writings of Stevan Harnad. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] -Original Message- From: for...@localhost.cern.ch Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:55 PM Subject: Re: rsis_education : Online journals I wish Subbiah Arunachalam can provide some details of the institutional self archiving model? How does or will it work? Some of us have heard of it and the #8220;open archive database,#8221; and will like to know how our journal (African Journal of Biotechnology) and others can be part of it. I do hope it functions like a superset of Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) where articles from every field can be accessed. Such centralized database is very much needed. Dr. NJ Tonukari Editor, African Journal of Biotechnology http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB http://www.inasp.org.uk/ajol/journals/ajb http://www.bioline.org.br/jb
Re: Interoperability - subject classification/terminology
Thanks very much Peter, Stevan, Johnson and others who have given your valuable comments. Let me pose my question in another form: The new information and communication technologies have tremendous potential to facilitate communication flow among scientists (researchers) and between scientists and their 'clients' (in the case of agricultural research, the clients are the farmers and policymakers). At present, physicists (especially high energy physicists and astronomers) and computer scientists are taking considerable advantage of ICTs. Agricultural scientists are among the poorest users of ICTs. How can we reach the benefits of ICTs to agricultural researchers? How can we make the transition from a 'poor use today' to a ' much better use tomorrow'? If I am able to find the funds, how can I go about actually making the transition to the better tomorrow? It is one thing to say that different subjects/ fields have different cultures, but another to do something about it. I am interested in changing the culture in agriculture. In my opinion, agriculture is a key area today. There is so much needless poverty and hunger in the world. Most developing countries depend on agriculture for their survival. We need to act quickly in that area. Regards. Arun
Re: Momentum for Eprint Archiving
The Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, has started an institutional archives. For more information, please contact r...@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in. [IISc also has started a programme called SciGate to assist the faculty and students of the institute.] Developing countries need such archives as by and large papers published by DC scientists do not get noticed. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] --- Peter Suber pet...@earlham.edu wrote: Momentum for eprint archiving Institutional eprint archiving is currently undergoing an unprecedented surge of acceptance and support. Years of patient work by many people at many institutions around the world have slowly assembled the pieces, spread the word, impressed the skeptics, and created a critical number of interoperable archives. Now archiving has reached a tipping point. Its rapidly spreading success is a pleasure to behold. For these purposes, eprint archiving has three components: (1) the software for building the archives, Eprints for large institutional or disciplinary archives and Kepler for smaller individual archivelets, (2) the Open Archives Initiative metadata harvesting protocol, the standard for making the archives interoperable, and (3) the decision by universities and laboratories to launch archives and fill them with the research output of their faculty. * Here are the major developments on these three fronts going back only six months. If you've been following the progress of the FOS movement for any number of years, you'll agree that no other single idea or technology in the movement has enjoyed this density of endorsement and adoption in a six month period. February 1, 2002. JISC holds the meeting to launch its Focus on Access to Institutional Resources Programme (FAIR), a program inspired by the vision of the Open Archives Initiative. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/pub02/c01_02.html February 6, 2002. Eight major library organizations from eight nations launch the International Scholarly Communication Alliance, which endorses institutional eprint archiving and the Open Archives Initiative. http://makeashorterlink.com/?A15D6226 February 14, 2002. Eprints launches version 2.0. http://software.eprints.org/newfeatures.php February 14, 2002. The Open Society Institute launches the Budapest Open Access Initiative, which endorses institutional eprint archiving and the Open Archives Initiative. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ February 25, 2002. The University of Michigan Libraries Digital Library Production Service announces the launch of OAIster, which creates an OAI-compliant archive out of content previously invisible in the deep internet. http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/cgi/b/bib/bib-idx?c=oaister;page=simple March 2002. The CARL/ABRC (Canadian Association of Research Libraries / Association des bibliotheques de recherche du Canada) issues a report endorsing the Open Archives Initiative. http://www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/scholarly/open_archives.PDF March, 2002. Francois Schiettecatte launches my.OAI, a flexible search engine for OAI-compliant archives. http://www.myoai.com/ March 12, 2002. MIT's OAI-compliant DSpace enters its Early Adopter Phase http://libraries.mit.edu/about/news/early-dspace.html March 26, 2002. The first DELOS EU/NSF Digital Libraries All Projects Meeting in Rome devotes a forum to the Open Archives Initiative. http://delos-noe.iei.pi.cnr.it/activities/internationalforum/All-Projects/us.html March 26, 2002. The OCLC Institute hosts the satellite videoconference, A New Harvest: Revealing Hidden Resources With the Open Archives Metadata Harvesting Protocol with host Lorcan Dempsey and featured speaker Herbert Van de Sompel. http://www.oclc.org/institute/events/sbs-new_harvest.htm April 3, 2002. The California Digital Library launches the OAI-compliant eScholarship Repository. http://repositories.cdlib.org/ April 7, 2002. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign launches its OAI-compliant Cultural Heritage repository. http://library.wustl.edu/~listmgr/imagelib/Apr2002/0002.html http://oai.grainger.uiuc.edu/oai/search April 11, 2002. Stephen Pinfield, Mike Gardner and John MacColl write an important article for _Ariadne_ on their experience setting up institutional eprint archives at the universities of Edinburgh and Nottingham. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue31/eprint-archives/ April 17, 2002. At the Museums and the Web 2002 conference in Boston, Timothy Cole and five co-authors present their experience setting up the UIUC Cultural Heritage Repository. http://www.archimuse.com/mw2002/papers/cole/cole.html May-June, 2002. Colin Steele and Lorena Kanellopoulos visit each of the Group of Eight universities in Australia to promote the creation and use of eprint repositories. Queensland set up an archive, Monash plans to do so, and Melbourne is experimenting; the rest of the Group of Eight is expected to create
Re: Ingenta to offer OAI eprint service
Dear Stevan: I hear that Eprints has entered into an agreement with Ingenta and that future versions of Eprints software may not be free. Is it true? Is this an admission that the Open access movement is losing momentum and even the greatest of its champions is entering into an agreement with a commercial firm to ensure the survival of the movement? Please enlighten me. A few weeks ago I saw a news item which stated that several leaders of the Open access movement were inducted into the Advisory Board of Ingenta. The list included Odlyzko! Regards. Arun
