> Le 21 sept. 2014 à 07:51, Jean-Claude Guédon > <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> a écrit : > > Finally, given that all universities require, an annual assessment of > performance, including a bibliography of publications in the completed year, > would it be difficult to compare the repository's holding against the > publications of the researchers as declared by them? Knowing researchers, > every last little scrap of paper will be minutely listed in the yearly > assessment forms...
This should be very easy in Liège, considering that ORBi being the only resource for official assessment, everything the author considers worth mentioning in his/her own production is in there, of course. So, your suggestion to evaluate how many items are in ORBi and are not in WoS/Scopus is a good advice. > Le 21 sept. 2014 à 07:51, Jean-Claude Guédon > <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> a écrit : > > Extremely good answer, Bernard! > > It is also very good to clarify the fact that the 90% figure is calculated > against the baseline of a combined WoS_Scopus search. However, and this was > part of my difficulties with Stevan's argument, I suspect that in SSH, in a > French-speaking university, many publish in French-language journals that do > not appear in either list. This means that, for Liège, the baseline works > from one year to the next, but if you want to compare Liège's mandate and its > effectiveness (which, once again, I agree, is - from common sense - the best) > with another kind of mandate in an English-speaking university, the baselines > will not be comparable. > > If, furthermore, you imagine two universities that not only differ > linguistically, but also differ in the relative weight of disciplines in > research output - say one heavily slanted STM and the other heavily slanted > SSH, this too will affect the baseline simply by virtue of the fact that SSH > publications are not as well covered by WoS and Scopus as are STM > publications. > > In conclusion, the baseline is OK for comparisons of a mandate's > effectiveness longitudinally, of for comparison purposes of two successive, > but different, mandates, assuming the institution remains pretty much the > same over time in terms of mix of research emphases; it is far more > questionable across institutions, especially when different languages are > involved (but not only). > > Incidentally, what proportion of papers deposited in ORBI do not appear in > either WoS or Scopus? That too would be interesting to know as it might help > Stevan refine his baseline and thus make it more convincing. > > Finally, given that all universities require, an annual assessment of > performance, including a bibliography of publications in the completed year, > would it be difficult to compare the repository's holding against the > publications of the researchers as declared by them? Knowing researchers, > every last little scrap of paper will be minutely listed in the yearly > assessment forms... <face-smile.png> > > -- > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > >> Le samedi 20 septembre 2014 à 19:10 +0200, Bernard Rentier - IMAP a écrit : >> Dear Richard, >> Here are the answers: >> 1. ORBi, the Liège University Repository, will soon (I believe) reach 90% >> compliance. It is our target for 2014 and I hope we make it. >> This figure comes from the calculation of the percentage of ULg papers that >> can be found in Web of Science and/or in Scopus that are deposited in ORBi >> as well (see method in http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340294/) >> It concerns one year at a time and it is not cumulative. Last May, the >> compliance level for the publications of 2013 was already 73% and our figure >> for 2012 is in the 80% range. >> 2. Only a small proportion of ULg papers are in CC-BY. >> This is simply because, in order to publish in the journal of their choice >> (I haven’t tried to do anything against that!), our authors, in the great >> centuries-old tradition, give away their rights to the publisher. We have no >> control on that. >> Later on, there is no way for them to CC-BY the same text (in fact, we are >> preparing ORBi 2.0, that will offer a CC-BY choice). >> For now, we are aiming at free access and we are not yet fighting hard for >> re-use rights. We shall move progressively in this direction of course, >> while the publishing mores evolve… >> In other words, I agree that we have free access, not a full fledge open >> access yet. It is not a failure, it is our objective to gain confidence >> first. >> Unfortunately, even if we have established in-house rules for evaluation, >> external evaluations are still based on traditional indicators such as the >> highly and rightfully criticized but widely used Impact Factor and the like. >> In these conditions, today we cannot sacrifice our researchers — singularly >> the young ones — in the overall competition for jobs and funds, on the altar >> of « pure » Open Access. >> Best wishes >> Bernard Rentier >> Rector, University of Liège, Belgium >>> Le 19 sept. 2014 à 21:52, Richard Poynder <ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> a >>> écrit : >>> Dear Bernard, >>> I have two questions if I may: >>> 1. You say that Liège is getting close to 90% compliance. Can you >>> explain how you know that, and how you calculate compliance levels? I ask >>> this because the consistent theme coming through from UK universities with >>> regard to compliance to the RCUK OA mandate is that they simply do not know >>> how many research outputs their faculty produce each year. If that is >>> right, what systems does Liège have in place to enable it to produce a >>> comprehensive list of research outputs that UK universities apparently do >>> not have? >>> 2. Does Liège track the licences attached to the deposits in its >>> repository? If so, can you provide some stats, especially the number of >>> items that are available CC-BY (which we are now told is required before a >>> deposit can be characterised as being open access? >>> Thank you. >>> Richard Poynder >>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf >>> Of brent...@ulg.ac.be >>> Sent: 19 September 2014 18:46 >>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Fwd: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster >>> "Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into the >>> local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess >>> performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions." >>> (JC. Guédon) >>> Oh no, Jean-Claude, Liège mandates everything. >>> It is a real mandate and it took me a while to get almost every ULg >>> researcher to realise that it is to his/her benefit. >>> Linking the deposits to personal in-house assessment was the trick to get >>> the mandate enforced in the first place. As well as a few positive >>> incentives and a lot of time consuming persuasion (but it was well worth >>> it). >>> Last Wednesday, the Liège University Board has put an ultimate touch of >>> wisdom on its mandate by adding "immediately upon acceptance, even in >>> restricted access" in the official procedure. Actually, a nice but to some >>> extent useless addition because, with time (the mandate was imposed in >>> 2007), ULg authors have become so convinced of the increase in readership >>> and citations that two thirds of them make their deposits between the date >>> of acceptance and the date of publication. >>> All this explains why we are getting close to 90% compliance, an >>> outstanding result, I believe. >>> >>> Le 18 sept. 2014 à 23:40, Jean-Claude Guédon >>> <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> a écrit : >>> A reasonably quick response as I do not want to go into discursive tsunami >>> mode... >>> >>> 1. Stevan admits that his evaluation of compliance is an approximation, >>> easy to get, but not easy to correct. This approximation varies greatly >>> from one institution to another, one circumstance to another. For example, >>> he admits that language plays a role; he should further admit that the >>> greater or smaller proportion of SSH researchers in the research >>> communities of various institutions will also play a role. in short, >>> comparing two institutions by simply using WoS approximations appears rash >>> and unacceptable to me, rather than simply quick and dirty (which I would >>> accept as a first approximation). >>> >>> The impact factor folly was mentioned because, by basing his approximation >>> on the WoS, Stevan reinforces the centrality of a partial and questionable >>> tool that is, at best, a research tool, not a management tool, and which >>> stands behind all the research assessment procedures presently used in >>> universities, laboratories, etc. >>> >>> 2. Stevan and I have long differed about OA's central target. He limits >>> himself to journal articles, as a first step; I do not. I do not because, >>> in the humanities and social sciences, limiting oneself to journal articles >>> would be limiting oneself to the less essential part of the archive we work >>> with, unlike natural scientists. >>> >>> Imagine a universe where a research metric would have been initially >>> designed around SSH disciplines and then extended as is to STM. In such a >>> parallel universe, books would be the currency of choice, and articles >>> would look like secondary, minor, productions, best left for later >>> assessments. Then, one prominent OA advocate named Stenan Harvard might >>> argue that the only way to proceed forward is to focus only on books, that >>> this is OA's sole objective, and that articles and the rest will be treated >>> later... Imagine the reaction of science researchers... >>> >>> 3. Liège does not mandate anything, so far as I know; it only looks into >>> the local repository (Orbi) to see what is in it, and it does so to assess >>> performance or respond to requests for promotions or grant submissions. If >>> books and book chapters are more difficult to treat than articles, then >>> place them in a dark archive with a button. This was the clever solution >>> invented by Stevan and I agree with it. >>> >>> 4. To obtain mandates, you need either faculty to vote a mandate on itself >>> (but few universities have done so), or you need administrators to impose a >>> mandate, but that is often viewed negatively by many of our colleagues. >>> Meanwhile, they are strongly incited to publish in "prestigious journals" >>> where prestige is "measured" by impact factors. From an average >>> researcher's perspective, one article in Nature, fully locked behind >>> pay-walls, is what is really valuable. Adding open access may be the cherry >>> on the sundae, but it is not the sundae. The result? OA, as of now, is not >>> perceived to be directly significant for successfully managing a career. >>> >>> On the other hand, the OA citation advantage has been fully recognized and >>> accepted by publishers. That is in part why they are finally embracing OA: >>> with high processing charges and the increased citation potential of OA, >>> they can increase revenues even more and satisfy their stakeholders. This >>> is especially true if funders, universities, libraries, etc., are willing >>> to pay for the APC's. This is the trap the UK fell into. >>> >>> 5. SSH authors are less interested in depositing articles than STM >>> researchers because, for SSH researchers, articles have far less importance >>> than books (see above), and, arguably, book chapters. >>> >>> 6. I am not citing rationales for the status quo, and Stevan knows this >>> well. This must be the first time that I have ever been associated with the >>> status quo... Could it be that criticizing Stevan on one point could be >>> seen by him as fighting for the status? But that would be true only if >>> Stevan were right beyond the slightest doubt. Hmmmmmmmmmm! >>> >>> I personally think he is right on some points and not so right on others. >>> >>> Also, I am simply trying to think about reasons why OA has been so hard to >>> achieve so far, and, in doing so, I have come to two conclusions: too >>> narrow an objective and too rigid an approach can both be >>> counter-productive. >>> >>> This said, trying to have a method to compare deposit rates in various >>> institutional and mandate circumstances would be very useful. I support >>> Stevan's general objective in this regard; I simply object to the validity >>> of the method he suggests. Alas, I have little to suggest beyond my >>> critique. >>> >>> I also suggest that a better understanding of the sociology of research >>> (not the sociology of knowledge) is crucial to move forward. >>> >>> Finally, I expect that if I saw Stevan self-archive his abundant scientific >>> production, I would be awed by the lightning speed of his keystrokes. But >>> are they everybody's keystrokes? >>> >>> Jean-Claude Guédon >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jean-Claude Guédon >>> Professeur titulaire >>> Littérature comparée >>> Université de Montréal >>>> Le jeudi 18 septembre 2014 à 12:28 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : >>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon >>> <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: >>> Most interesting dialogue. >>> >>> I will focus on two points: >>> >>> 1. Using the Web of Science collection as a reference: this generates all >>> kinds of problems, particularly for disciplines that are not dominated and >>> skewed by the impact factor folly. This is true, for example, of most of >>> the social sciences and the humanities, especially when these publications >>> are not in English. >>> The purpose of using WoS (or SCOPUS, or any other standardized index) as a >>> baseline for assessing OA repository success is to be able to estimate (and >>> compare) what percentage of an institution's total annual refereed journal >>> article output has been self-archived. >>> Raw total or annual deposit counts tell us neither (1) whether the deposits >>> are refereed journal articles nor (2) when the articles were published, nor >>> (most important of all) (3) what proportion of total annual refereed >>> journal article output is deposited. >>> Institutions do not know even know their total annual refereed journal >>> article output. (One of the (many) reasons for mandating self-archiving is >>> in order to get that information.) >>> The WoS (or SCOPUS, or other) standardized database provides the >>> denominator against which the deposits of those articles provide the >>> numerator. >>> Once that ratio is known (for WoS articles, for example), it provides an >>> estimate of the proportion of total institutional article output deposited. >>> Anyone can then "correct" the ratio for their institution and discipline, >>> if they wish, by simply taking a (large enough) sample of total >>> institutional journal article output for a recent year and seeing what >>> percentage of it is in WoS! (This would obviously have to be done >>> discipline by discipline; and indeed the institutional totals should also >>> be broken down and analyzed by discipline.) >>> So if D/W, the WoS-deposit/total-WoS ratio = R, and w/s, the >>> WoS-indexed-portion/total-output-sample = c, then c can be used to upgrade >>> W to the estimate of total institutional article output, and the WoS >>> deposit ratio R can be compared to the deposit ratio for the non-WoS sample >>> (which must not, of course, be derived from the repository, but some other >>> way!) to get a non-WoS ratio of Rc. >>> My own prediction is that R and Rc will be quite similar, but if not, c can >>> also be used to correct R to better reflect both WoS and non-WoS output and >>> their relative sizes. >>> But R is still by far the easiest and fastest way to get an estimate of >>> institutional deposit percentages. >>> (As far as I can see, none of this has much to do with impact factor folly. >>> For non-English-language institutions, however, the non-WoS correction may >>> be more substantial.) >>> >>> >>> Stevan has also and long argued about limiting oneself to journal articles. >>> I have my own difficulties with this limitation because book chapters and >>> monographs are so important in the disciplines that I tend to work in. >>> Also, I regularly write in French as well as English, while reading >>> articles in a variety of languages. Most of the articles that are not in >>> English are not in the Web of Science. A better way to proceed would be to >>> check if the journals not in the WoS, and corresponding to deposited >>> articles, are peer-reviewed. The same could be done with book chapters. >>> Incidentally, if I limited myself to WoS publications for annual >>> performance review, I would look rather bad. I suspect I am not the only >>> one in such a situation, while leading a fairly honourable career in >>> academe. >>> Authors are welcome to deposit as much as they like: articles, chapters, >>> books, data, software. >>> But OA's primary target (and also its primary obstacle) is journal >>> articles. Ditto for OA mandates. >>> All disciplines, including the social sciences and humanities, in all >>> languages, write journal articles. This discussion is about the means of >>> measuring the success of an OA self-archiving mandate. It applies to all >>> journal articles (and refereed conference articles) in all disciplines. >>> There are problems with mandating book deposit, or even book chapter >>> deposit, so that is being left for later. >>> Nothing is being said about performance review except that the way to >>> submit journal articles should be stipulated to be repository deposit. >>> 2. The issue of rules and regulations. It is absolutely true that a >>> procedure such as the one adopted at the Université de Liège and which >>> Stevan aptly summarizes as (with a couple of minor modifications): >>> "henceforth the way to submit refereedjournal article publications for >>> annual performance review is to deposit them in the [appropriate] IR ". >>> Liège does not mandate the deposit of books. >>> However, obtaining this change of behaviour from an administration is no >>> small task. At the local, institutional, level, it corresponds to a >>> politically charged effort that requires having a number of committed OA >>> advocates working hard to push the idea. Stevan should know this from his >>> own experience in Montreal; he should also know that, presently, the Open >>> Access issue is not on the radar of most researchers. In scientific >>> disciplines, they tend to be mesmerized by impact factors without making >>> the link between this obsession and the OA advantage, partly because enough >>> controversies have surrounded this issue to maintain a general feeling of >>> uncertainty and doubt. In the social sciences and humanities where the >>> citation rates are far less "meaningful" - I put quotation marks here to >>> underscore the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of citation numbers: >>> visibility, prestige, quality? - the benefits of self-archiving one's >>> articles in open access are less obvious to researchers, especially if they >>> do not adopt a global perspective on the importance of the "grand >>> conversation" needed to produce knowledge in an optimal manner, but rather >>> intend to manage and protect their career. >>> I am not sure what is the point of the above observations. I agree it has >>> been difficult to get authors to deposit. That's why the OA movement has >>> turned to mandates, and now to ways of optimizing mandates so as to >>> facilitate and maximize success (i.e. deposit rates). And here we are just >>> talking about how to measure and compare those deposit rates between >>> institutions, and between mandates. >>> Nothing about impact factors, performance evaluation criteria, metrics, >>> discipline criteria or language differences. Just ways to induce journal >>> article authors to deposit them in their institutional repositories. >>> >>> >>> Saying all this is not saying that we should not remain committed to OA, >>> far from it; is is simply saying that the chances of success in reaching OA >>> will not be significantly improved by simply referring to "huge" benefits >>> at the cost of only a few extra keystrokes. This is rhetoric. The last time >>> I deposited an article of mine, given the procedure used in the depository >>> I was using, it took me close to half an hour to enter all the details >>> required by that depository - a depository organized by librarians, mainly >>> for information science specialists. All these details were legitimate and >>> potentially useful. However, while I was absolutely sure I was doing the >>> right thing, I could well understand why a colleague less sanguine about OA >>> than I am might push this task to the back burner. In fact, I did so myself >>> for several months. Shame on me, probably, but this is the reality of the >>> quotidian. >>> I invite Jean-Claude to time me depositing an article in my institutional >>> repository (and I am not a fast typist)! It takes about two minutes. >>> In conclusion, i suspect that if Stevan focuses on such a narrowly-defined >>> target - journal articles in the STM disciplines - this is because he >>> gambles on the fact that making these disciplines fully OA would force the >>> other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences to follow suit >>> sooner or later. Perhaps, it is so, but perhaps it is not. Meanwhile, >>> arguing in this fashion tends to alienate practitioners of the humanities >>> and the social sciences, so that the alleged advantages of narrowly >>> focusing on a well-defined target are perhaps more than negatively >>> compensated by the neglect of SSH disciplines. yet, the latter constitute >>> about half, if not more, of the researchers in the world. >>> The target is journal articles in all disciplines. Not clear why SSH >>> journal article authors would be any more or less compliant with >>> self-archiving mandates than any other discipline. It has nothing to do >>> with books, yet. >>> Yes, once journal articles are being self-archived universally, many other >>> things will follow. >>> I suggest that it may be more constructive to practice deposit keystrokes >>> to provide OA than to cite a-priori rationales for the status quo, >>> Jean-Claude. I bet you'll be up to speed after depositing just a few >>> articles! >>> Stevan Harnad >>> Le mercredi 17 septembre 2014 à 07:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> From: Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >>> >>> Subject: Re: The Open Access Interviews: Paul Royster >>> Date: September 16, 2014 at 5:28:48 PM GMT-4 >>> >>> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:46 PM, Paul Royster <proyst...@unl.edu> wrote: >>> At the risk of stirring up more sediment and further muddying the waters of >>> scholarly communications, >>> but in response to direct questions posed in this venue earlier this month, >>> I shall venture the following … >>> >>> Answers for Dr. Harnad >>> >>> (1) What percentage of Nebraska-Lincoln output of peer-revewed journal >>> articles (only) per year is >>> deposited in the N-L Repository? About 3 months ago I furnished your >>> graduate student (at least he >>> said he was your student) with 5 years of deposit data so he could compare >>> it to Web of Science >>> publication dates and arrive at some data-based figure for this. I >>> cautioned him that I felt Web of >>> Science to be a narrow and commercially skewed comparison sample, but I >>> sent the data anyway. >>> So I expect you will have an answer to this query before I do. If the news >>> is good, I hope you will >>> share it with this list; if not, then let your conscience be your guide. As >>> for benchmarking, I don’t believe >>> it is a competition, and every step in the direction of free scholarship is >>> a positive one. I hope when >>> they hand out the medals we at least get a ribbon for participation. >>> >>> >>> Thanks for reminding me! It was my post-doc, Yassine Gargouri, and I just >>> called him to ask about >>> the UNL results. He said he has the UNL data and will have the results of >>> the analysis in 2-3 weeks! >>> >>> >>> So the jury is still out. But many thanks for sending the data. Apparently >>> Sue was not aware that UNL >>> had provided those data (and I too had forgotten!). >>> (2) Why doesn’t N-L adopt a self-archiving mandate? >>> I do not even attempt to explain the conduct of the black box that is my >>> university’s administration; >>> so in short, I cannot say why or why not. I can only say why I have not >>> campaigned for adoption of >>> such a mandate. My reasons have been purely personal and idiosyncratic, >>> and I do not hold them >>> up as a model for anyone else or as representing the thinking or attitude >>> of this university. Bluntly, >>> I have not sought to create a mandate because I feel there are enough >>> regulations and requirements >>> in effect here already. Instituting more rules brings further problems of >>> enforcement or compliance, >>> and it creates new categories of deviance. There are already too many >>> rules: we have to park in >>> designated areas; we have to drink Pepsi rather than Coke products; we have >>> to wear red on game >>> days; we can’t enter the building through the freight dock; etc. etc. etc. >>> I simply do not believe in >>> creating more rules and requirements, even if they are for our own good. >>> The Faculty Senate >>> voted to “endorse and recommend” our repository; I have not desired more >>> than that. But I am >>> concerned mainly with 1600 faculty on two campuses in one medium-sized >>> university town—not >>> with a universal solution to the worldwide scholarly communications crisis. >>> I see discussions lately >>> about “putting teeth” into mandated deposit rules, and I wonder—who is >>> intended to be bitten? >>> Apparently, the already-beleaguered faculty. >>> >>> >>> I agree that we are over-regulated! But I think that doing a few extra >>> keystrokes when a refereed >>> final draft is accepted for publication is really very little, and the >>> potential benefits are huge. Also, >>> there is some evidence as to how authors comply with a self-archiving >>> mandate — if it’s the right >>> self-archiving mandate, i.e., If the mandate simply indicates that >>> henceforth the way to submit refereed >>> journal article publications for annual performance review is to deposit >>> them in UNL’s IR (rather than >>> however they are being submitted currently) then UNL faculty will comply as >>> naturally as they did >>> when it was mandaed that submissions should be online rather than in hard >>> copy. It’s just a technological upgrade. >>> (3) Why do you lump together author-pays with author-self-archives? >>> I was not aware that I did this, so perhaps you are responding to Sue’s >>> catalog of various proposed >>> solutions—“author-pays OA, mandated self-archiving of manuscripts, CHORUS, >>> SHARE, and others”—as >>> all being “ineffectual or unsustainable initiatives to varying degrees.” I >>> feel we are strong believers and >>> even advocates for author self-archiving (so-called), and disdainful >>> non-advocates for author-pays models. >>> But I think we have become aware of the divergence of interests between the >>> global theoretics of the >>> open access “movements” on the one hand and the “boots-on-the-ground” >>> practicalities of managing >>> a local repository, even one with global reach, on the other. Crusades for >>> and controversies about >>> “open access” have come to seem far removed from what we actually do, and >>> now seem more of a >>> distraction than a help or guide. >>> >>> >>> I can understand that, from the library’s perspective: The library can’t >>> mandate self-archiving, can’t fund >>> author-pays, and can’t do anything about authors’ rights. But maybe, if you >>> look at the evidence that >>> mandates work, and become convinced, then the library could encourage the >>> administration… And >>> of course if self-archiving is mandated at UNL, then the library can help >>> with mediated self-archiving, >>> at least initially, as I pointed out to Sue (though it’s hardly necessary, >>> for a few keystrokes — certainly >>> a much smaller task than UNL’s current mediated deposit: tracking down the >>> PDF. checking the rights. etc.). >>> We have been (and continue to be) constant supporters of “green” open >>> access; and we have appreciated >>> Dr. Harnad’s reliably indefatigable defenses of that cause against >>> innumerable critics, nay-sayers, and >>> “holier-than-thou” evangelists of competing approaches. I sympathize with >>> his weariness, I applaud his tirelessness, >>> and I do not wish to tax his patience further. I hope no part of this >>> response will be interpreted as attempting >>> to dispute, contradict, or diminish any of his points. I regret if these >>> answers are unsatisfactory or incomplete, >>> but that is all I can manage at this time. >>> >>> >>> Much appreciated, Paul! >>> >>> >>> Hope to have the UNL data for you soon, with a comparison with other IRs, >>> mandated and unmandated. >>> >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> Stevan >>> >>> Paul Royster >>> Coordinator of Scholarly Communications >>> University of Nebraska–Lincoln >>> proys...@unl.edu >>> http://digitalcommons.unl.edu >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 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 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
