Re: [EuroscienceOA] Heidelberg Humanities Hocus-Pocus
In essence, it is not serious, trying to understand and being concerned about something, but a polemic intentional negative campaigning of the Boersenverein in charge for defending the policy of publishers, and some pseudo-intellectuals like Mr. Reuss. The very language is absurd: 'the freedom of science to be at stake'... The Reuss 'Appell' is not serious for scientists, and has been signed by a) journalists, private writers, belletristic writers, and some intellectuals. (For them, partly there is some truth in it). Clearly, somewhat slowly, all the German Science Organisations, e.g.the Allianz der Wissenschaften with the Wissenschaftsrat, the Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, Max Planck, Fraunhofer etc. have protested and handed out press releases to counteract. Also the Urheberrechtsbuendnis. http://www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de/aktiv.html.en Also, after a first blind copying and distribution by journalists at Newspapers such as DIE ZEIT, now there is a multitude of serious thoughtful articles in daily newspapers, notably Tagesspiegel, sorting the conflations out. So, dont worry, there is a real concert now on open access in public now. I personally believe that this will help OA. To give you a perspective on the lobbyistic powers in Germany, very quickly after the Heidelberg 'Appell' appeared, the chancelor Merkel praised it, and its special minister Maizier signed it and said in public: 'we should have a keen eye on whether regulations are necessary for restricting OA, and analyse whether OA is necessary or usefull'. (For an analysis they ask the Boersenverein). This will now give heat to the pre-election campaigns.. Because now the big research institutes e.g. in physics with its established preprint culture and need will enter the scene. In effect, we got now more public interest than ever expected. So let us see what the effect is. just to add: Mr.Reuss, in his role as Professor of history, or course has his posted a digital copy of all his scientific articles on his institutional server, with a link to the publisher for ordering a printed copy if wished. This is Kafka-esk: lying on the back just as the lobbyists do, OA is the devils' gift, standing on his feet as a scientist, he is using OA. By the way, his research field is Kafka. Eberhard Hilf See for the press releases: http://www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de/aktiv.html.en also by the Allianz der Wissenschaften of all major German Science Organisations. ..... Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof. Geschaeftsfuehrer (CEO) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121, D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-Home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ Homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf E-Mail : h...@isn-oldenburg.de Tel : +49-441-798-2884 Fax : +49-441-798-5851 ISN ist unter HRB5017 im Handelsregister beim Amtsgericht Oldenburg (Oldb.) eingetragen. USt-ID : DE220045733 . Sign the petition for Open Access to the EU: http://www.ec-petition.eu ; Why not visit - Blog zu Open Access: http://www.zugang-zum-wissen.de/journal - Physics Distributed Network: htpp://www.physnet.net - Buendnis Urheberrecht fuer Bildung und Wissenschaft http://www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de
Re: The self-archiving sweepstakes
Prior AmSci Topic Thread: "The self-archiving sweepstakes" (began February 7, 2003) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2662.html Dear Colleagues, It would be nice to get an estimate of the growth of the number of Open Access scientific documents (S. Harnad: "immediate, permanent, toll-free, webwide full-text access online"). Who has an estimate? In physics alone we have some 2,000,000 such documents from institutional servers http://de.physnet.net/PhysNet/physdoc.html, of which only some 8% have some metadata and some of them are presented by an OAi MPH-compliant Data provider. Thus, just counting the OA-OAi data provider is grossly underestimating what is going on. In addition it would be good if the very instructive and stimulating Institutional OA Archives Registry http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?page=all were updated to get current data after its apparent last update of 2004. A synoptic website on OA-information collected (in German) you find at http://zugang-zum-wissen.de Eberhard Hilf ......... Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851 Why not visit - Buendnis Urheberrecht fuer Bildung und Wissenschaft www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de - Open Access www.zugang-zum-wissen.de - Physics Distributed Network: www.physnet.net
Harvesting from the many OA servers that are not yet OAI-compliant
Regarding Stevan's U-Haul Allegory, with 1,000,000 authors halted with their trucks full of prime scientific information in front of the mostly green traffic lights, which they mostly don't trust or can't read or are too timid to act upon: The suggestion to wait there for their bosses to intervene and give them a kick needs a kick of its own! There is a bypass around this small-town traffic jam with its traffic lights, a highway that authors drive through, with no traffic lights, just go! First provide Open Access (OA, to the unpublished preprint) and then negotiate with whomever! This express lane is also used by the authors who know that the journal to which they plan to submit the preprint is one of the 90%+ of journals that are green. In Physics alone we already have 152,380 OA scientific documents self-archived in 1,798 institutional servers distributed worldwide. By the way: We would have a more accurate global "truck" count if the OA Archives Registry http://archives.eprints.org/ updated to include the actual total number of OA-papers served by OAI-MPH archives. Over and above the 300 OAI-MPH archives monitored in the Registry, PhysNet alone would add another 1,798 distributed servers whence the relevant documents are gathered, analyzed for their metadata, and -- if they pass (or can be made pass) the OAI-MPH hurdle -- are presented in the OAI-dataprovider outlet of PhysNet. http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet/ The separation of data-providers and service-providers in the OAI-concept helped greatly to produce clarity, but it also obscures the fact that services such as PhysNet are in fact both: They bring together documents that are not part of an existing data-provider, thereby increasing greatly the number of OA-documents that are available. We feel that there exist far more OA-documents on local institutional servers than those few that fit the strict OAI-MPH rules and are self-archived by the still few official OAI-data providers. Let us do a little estimate for Physics alone: 100,000 is an estimate of the number of university staff in physics worldwide. Each might have on average self-archived about 10 relevant manuscripts per year on their local institutional server, preprint, eprint, etc. The growing habit of doing this in physics started some 8 years ago. This would yield (adjusting for the gradual change in habits) about 5 million OA documents available on the web from about 2,000 Universities worldwide. Counting only those that come from an OAI-MPH-compliant data provider hence produces a gross underestimate. An example: Of the about 5 million OA physics documents individually self-archived by scientists on their institutional servers, PhysNet finds only 5% today (but it is being redesigned to include much more). Of those documents, 8% have metadata that are more or less compliant with Dublin Core. Yet of those 2,000 institutional servers, only about 300 are detected by http://archives.eprints.org/ Summary: Open Access is already a very widespread phenomenon, but the official OA counts are not yet revealing this. The OAI services are nevetheless a great help in finding documents and in identifying them as having been considered relevant by the data provider. Just by adding metadata to quantities of OA documents harvested from local research groups using http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/services/mmm/ rather than waiting for each institution to make up its mind to adopt an official OA self-archiving policy, we have generated an enormous positive response from authors, gratified at being more cited, being found in google, being phoned and emailed by colleagues, etc. We are hence following Stevan's motto: don't sit waiting: just go ahead and do. Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851 Why not visit - Buendnis Urheberrecht fuer Bildung und Wissenschaft www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de - Open Access www.zugang-zum-wissen.de - Physics Distributed Network: www.physnet.net
Re: Berlin-3 Open Access Conference, Southampton, Feb 28 - Mar 1 2005
the last keystroke for the author, as mentioned by Stevan Harnad, that the metadata are typed in, even that can be outsourced: our Institute does this for large stacks of documents for any scientific author, with results like http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/hydro/siefert04.html (check for the source code); which then the author puts on his webserver. so, the only thing left, is, that authors say either yes or a enforced by their University to do so. Ebs . Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851 Why not visit - Buendnis Urheberrecht fuer Bildung und Wissenschaft www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de - Open Access www.zugang-zum-wissen.de - Physics Distributed Network: www.physnet.net On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > The avowed purpose of the international meeting that will be hosted > by Southampton University February 28 - March 1 > > "Berlin 3 Open Access: Progress in Implementing the Berlin Declaration > on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities" > http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/program.html > > is to *implement* the Berlin Declaration, so as to turn it into a concrete > institutional policy which institutions that have signed (and will > sign) the Berlin Declaration can then commit themselves to adopting. > > The Berlin Declaration itself was only an abstract expression of principle: > Scholarly/Scientific research should be freely accessible online to all > potential users worldwide. > > http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html > > Many institutions worldwide signed that they endorsed that Principle. > > http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html > > But not that they would put the Principle into Practice, or How! > > Berlin 2 (at CERN in May 2004) > > http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-cern/program_prelim.html > > began drafting a "Roadmap" for implementing the Berlin Declaration: > > > http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-cern/presentation-oa2berlin-roadmap-proposal.pdf > > but the Roadmap was still far too vague to provide a basis for a specific, > concrete, practical institutional policy. > > That concrete policy is what the Berlin 3 Meeting in Southampton in > February will try to formulate, and there is a candidate proposal (from > Southampton) on the table, as to what this practical implementation policy > should be: > > Unified Institutional Open-Access Provision Policy: > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm > > I. The institution's researchers EITHER publish their research > in an Open Access Journal (if/when a suitable one exists) > > OR > > II. The institution's researchers publish their research in > a suitable non-Open Access journal AND also self-archive a copy of > it in their own institutional Open Access Archive. > > This is (roughly) the OA policy that has since been adopted at Southampton: > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/news/667 > > and of course the self-archiving component (II) is the critical one, as > institutions cannot create or convert OA Journals, nor can they commit > their researchers to publishing in them, but they can certainly create > OA Archives and commit their researchers to self-archiving a copy of > all their research articles in them immediately upon acceptance for > publication (and encourage self-archiving the preprints even earlier). > > At least 7 other institutions besides Southampton (2 in Germany, 2 in > France, 1 in Australia, 1 in Portugal, 1 in India) have already adopted > and implemented an institutional policy along these lines: > > http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php > http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php > > If this policy (or a suitable variant) is adopted as the Berlin > Declaration's official "Roadmap" for OA in February, then institutional > self-archiving and OA provision should shortly experience a dramatic > growth spurt worldwide. > > Also to be present at the Berlin Declaration meeting are the > representatives of two important national research institutions -- > France's CNRS and Germany's Max-Planck Institutes. These distributed > multi-disciplinary institutions are far bigger than any single > university, and if they adopt the implementation policy, all other > research universit
Re: June 27 2004: The 1994 "Subversive Proposal" at 10
This is to add to Stevan's very thoughtful reminiscences some of our own experiences in physics concerning relations with publishers and OA. In 1994 there were several workshops with participants from different countries, organized by either Frank Laloe (CNRS, Univ. Paris Sud) or myself in Oldenburg. Bob Kelly from APS and H.E.Roosendaal, the strategic chief person from Elsevier Amsterdam, attended. We got an invitation from Elsevier to Amsterdam and reported to the Chief executive committee on the top floor. Beforehand, when they saw me from the windows entering the building down below, someone quipped "Here comes the death of Elsevier"; however, it was a very constructive open discussion. We had a committee -- 'Elfikom': electronic research information and communication -- of which Springer was a member. We had joint policy papers by Roosendaal (ES), Springer, IoPP, and ourselves, on the future of distributed document databases, integrating the physics self-archiving system PhysNethttp:// www.physnet.net with joint retrieval, etc. We had a joint European Union Application DDD-Physics 'Multimedia scientific Physics Document Database in Physics' with what was (in retrospect) an impressive list of participants (CERN, Physics societies, user groups, FIZ Karlsruhe (STN Database host), Rank Xerox, Akademie Verlag, Elsevier, Springer Verlag in 1995. The link is of course still there, although some links from there point to nowhere now: http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/ddd-phys/partners2.html http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/ddd-phys/ the homepage http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/ddd-phys/proposal_small/sectionstar3_3.html where you still can read the whole application. (I will look for the password if asled.) There were constructive discussions with APS, and IoPP. The Action Committee for Publication and Scientific Communication of the EPS had publisher members (IoPP and EDP). But then it became clear that to take this approach was to drag our feet. EPS remodeled its Action committee, no publisher members any more, DDD was turned down by the EU, and PhysNet became autonomous. Only now (for the past 1-2 years) can the retrieval engine include the abstracts of all IoPP papers, thanks to a constructive agreement. The elfikom http://elfikom.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/ server is still there, started in 1995, and last changed in 2000. Publisher Members were from Springer, Elsevier, Akademie Verlag, VCH, Phys. Blaetter http://elfikom.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/Docs/Mitglieder_english.html A list of early activities of 1994/1995 was compiled in 1998: http://elfikom.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/Docs/Termine.html The talks of 1994/1995 are also still there. http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf/vortraege/halle-ebs/halle-ebs.html http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf/vortraege/bmftprojekte.html which recur to older activities. And the papers, http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/publikationen.html?pub=liste The IuK www.iuk-initiative.org Initiative Information and Communication of the Learned Societies in Germany was founded in 1995. Thus I conclude that the dissociation from the publishers occurred later, in late 1998, when they began to leave in order to hold on to what they had, and now they fight even harder to maintain toll access as long as possible. Elsevier is going to court in Germany against the University Libraries concerning document copy delivery. The Government intends to forbid document copy delivery in future, allowing documents to be viewed only on-screen in the library. See http://www.urheberrechtsbuendnis.de I still think that closer contact and bridge between publishers and research University groups would have boosted technological development much more than the present dissociation has done, and thus it would have served the science process more. This would have meant focussing on additional, new, innovative professional services and letting document ownership (now called toll access) become free by embracing OA throughout. Eberhard Hilf
Re: The "Library of Alexandria" Non-Problem
1. Clearly, long term archiving of scientific documents calls for full access over many years to the full and reusable scientific information for future checking as to whether it is true, as well as for future usage and further work. This calls for the full material, for the use of open code formats such as html, latex, and the use of MathML, CML, PML, .. for the core information. 2. The publisher's version of word-processing, which produces an image of the file and reduced material, is meant as easy reading for some wealthy institute employees -- nothing to do with the long term future. In addition, commercial publishers do aim at the present time to earn money and do not care about the future, when they might no longer exist. Some of the e-versions of my papers with Wiley are gone after less than ten years, because the Publisher bought the (indirect daugther) Physikalische Blaetter, but without the e-archive. Of course these published e-Documents of mine are still in our Institutional OA archive. Institutional self-archiving, together with agreements on mirrors, and retrieval, is a safe proposition for long-term archiving. See for yourself: The three documents below are still there -- since 1994!, 1997 and 2000, yet gone form the publisher's archive. In the self-archived version, they contain metadata, and the full text (click on the title). Also, check google and see: the documents have been archived, read, cited at several places. K. Zimmermann, T. Severiens, E. R. Hilf: Ihre Homepage als Beitrag zu einem Fach-Informationsnetz Phys. Bl., April 2000, p. 3 http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/documents/UOL-THEO3-2000-1/ although this is in the pdf-file version scanned in in the publisher's archive now. E. R. Hilf: Elektronische Information fr die Physik; (Grundstze eines Informationsmanagements) Phys. Bl. 53 (1997) Nr. 4, p. 311-315 http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/Docs/THEO3/information/publications/metafiles/9702.html E. R. Hilf, L. Weisel: Dringender Diskussionsbedarf - Wie soll die elektronische Information und Kommunikation in der Physik zukuenftig aussehen? Phys. Bl. 50 (1994) Nr. 1, p. 65 http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/Docs/THEO3/information/publications/metafiles/physbl.194.html So Peter Murray-Rust is on the right track. Eberhard R. Hilf Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851 PRIOR TOPIC THREAD: "The "Library of Alexandria" Non-Problem" (started 1999) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0413.html On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Rzepa, Henry wrote: > On 10 Sep 2004, at 09:24, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > > "Representation and Use of Chemistry in the Global Electronic Age" > > Peter Murray-Rust, Henry S. Rzepa, Simon. M. Tyrrell and Y. Zhang > > http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/obc/ > > Peter uses the term "extended" publication. If you extend publication > with "data" , particularly as an integral part of a document (a > "datument") then rather subtle consequences accrue for archival. > > A trivial one first: The publisher argued that our use of colour in > our original diagrams was not "integral to the scientific case being > made". Our intended retention of colour in the self-archived version > presumably implies the possibility of slightly different perception of > this version of the article for people reading it this way. At what > point does this possibility become scientifically significant? > > More important is that the original (author prepared) article was > actually written in HTML/XML, and hence much data was included in > this original. To prepare it for the journal production process, > we convert this to Word, from which the journal then produces proofs; > during this process of course, much of the value of the original data is > lost. > > There is no need for this particular transform in the self-archived > version, which therefore contains the data in "re-usable" form, > something which cannot be said with the traditional print/Acrobat > publishing process. > > So in effect, the self-archived version is a true superset of the > "definitive" published version. As the "added value" of this > version increases (eg as tools for handling it become more common > and sophisticated, see for example > http://www.wolfram.com/products/publicon/) > so the "published" version may well become perceived as a low-value > version. In data-rich areas such as chemistry, this p
Re: The self-archiving sweepstakes
as a condition for receiving research funding is the most effective way to generate OA (and underway) but I am also looking for additional effective ways to accelerate the process! Yours Eberhard R. Hilf h...@isn-oldenburg.de Initial AmSci Topic Thread: "The self-archiving sweepstakes" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2662.html
Re: The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition
ry employees' salaries are involved). > > Authors are perfectly capable of doing OAI-compliant self-archiving > for themselves (though help from librarians is certainly welcome, > especially to get the ball rolling): > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do Yes, agreed: capable they are; but we have not been capable (nor have the mathematicianin Math-Net http://www.math-net.org/services) of persuading most authors to use metadata themselves! That is why in Germany the University Libraries, following the Berliner Erklaerung and the BOAI, provides this service in their upcoming institutional archives. Stevan: > > Ebs: > > The expert would gain the desired document directly > > from the author's website or elsewhere using search engines. Small > > departments in remote countries would be able to get the unrefereed > > information without having to pay, but they would miss the real > > added-value services. > > "Are there not experts in both nearby and remote countries? And > don't they all want access to the correct refereed version? And is > that not the version that authors want them to have access to? And > isn't open access about providing access to those who cannot afford > the toll-access version? And is that not the toll-access version > of the refereed postprint (since there is not toll-access version > of the unrefereed preprint)?" Agree. [Broken english is sometimes hard to understand and interpret for a true Brit]: Always self-archive the best, most fully refereed version at hand, in the pure interests of the author's career. Ebs . Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851
Re: The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition
it does with ACP http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/publication_process.html ). Subscribing to a journal is thereby decoupled from gaining access to the information content of the raw document, and money is spent only on the refereeing and polishing, as well as the archiving of the document. Such a process of publicly self-archiving a document first and getting it refereed afterward would save money with which institutional libraries could subscribe to journals and would allow those publishers to flourish who add real value. The expert would gain the desired document directly from the author's website or elsewhere using search engines. Small departments in remote countries would be able to get the unrefereed information without having to pay, but they would miss the real added-value services. Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851
Re: Open Access Does Not require Republishing and Reprinting Rights
see wall street journal of monday, 20th is a short article by Charles Goldsmith on 'Reed Elsevier Feels Resistance To Web Pricing' dwelling on the 12 % decrease of Reed's price share, Cornell's unbundling its Elsevier order, and it mentions that Reed douled its science medical revenue from 1999 to 2002 (2.33 Billion $), subscription plus 7% per year, and mentions self-archiving as a way out. Ebs ......... Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851
Dublin Core Checker for OAI Archives
Dear Colleagues, To synchronize the OAi efforts at various places it may be useful to make use of the Dublin-Core-checker of Heinrich Stamerjohanns http://harvest.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/dc/index.html "The DC-Checker does not focus on formal XML correctness of OAI-Records (use the Repository Explorer instead) but checks whether the given Dublin Core Metadata follows the recommendations of the DCMI (plus additional checks)." Yours Ebs
Cornell University Library (to cancel Elsevier journals?)
Regarding Cornell's plan's to cancel Elsevier journals: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2003_11_09_fosblogarchive.html# What is all the fuss about? The Physics Department of the University of Oldenburg has canceled all commercial journals, with the exception of small ones (less than 200 E), and is certainly keeping all the APS journals, because of PROLA access, and using the freed money for ordering single copies when necessary. We are also improving information on online access methods, and training readers to: - search first for whatever information you want, from whomever you want - search for the author's home institution and homepage via PhysNet http://www.physnet.net using either PhysDep (departmental information or by PhysDoc (scientific documents) - email the author and ask for a copy or a reprint, or a preprint - and thereby tell him: I am till now perhaps unknown to you, but this shows my interest, and that I am working in the field. (And maybe ask him a question: that means communicate, rather than just passively reading...) Our tests suggest: This works mostly within 24 hours, costs nothing, improves oneself being recognized by famous authors. Self-archiving serves this to you. Let me know your experiences. Ebs P.S. As of recently, PhysDoc is now covering virtually all self-archived scientific documents in Physics at German Physics departments, institutes. > http://www.library.cornell.edu/scholarlycomm/index.html > aus: Cornell Universitiy Library - Issues in Scholarly Communication > > "For many years, increases in the prices of library materials in all > formats (including more recently electronic) have generally > exceededsometimes significantlyincreases in library acquisitions > budgets. Libraries have worked hard to minimize the effects of this > imbalance, but we are now reaching a point at which many institutions, > including Cornell, are for this reason no longer able to provide access > to some standard materials needed for instruction and research. > > [...] > > The Elsevier Subscription > > As noted elsewhere on this Web site, the prices of commercial science > journals increase at a much higher rate than those of the > not-for-profits. There are a number of such publishersWiley, Springer, > Kluwerbut the paradigmatic commercial science publisher is Elsevier, > and there are indeed special challenges associated with subscribing to > Elsevier. > > [...] > > In 2003, we were able to maintain our subscriptions to Elsevier > journals, only because we received one-time assistance from the > University Librarian. The primary purpose of this 2003 one-time funding > was to buy us some time, so that we would be able to explain these > issues to Library users, and prepare for the possibility that we would > need to cancel a significant number of Elsevier journals for 2004. > > It is now nearly 2004, and the need to undertake such a cancellation > effort has arrived. We can no longer subscribe to so many Elsevier > journals (including duplicates) that we no longer need. We must now free > up some of the money spent on Elsevier journals to pay for journals > published by other publishers that are more needed by our users. We have > explained this to Elsevier in lengthy discussions, both through our > research library consortium and then independently. We have tried in > these discussions to broker an arrangement that would allow us to cancel > some Elsevier titles without such a large price increase to the titles > remainingbut Elsevier has been unwilling to accept any of our proposals. > > We are therefore planning to cancel several hundred Elsevier journals > for 2004. The decisions on cancellations will be made on the basis of > faculty input, as well as several years of statistical information on > individual journal use. As will be clear from the remarks above, we have > been preparing for this cancellation, while hoping to avoid it, for more > than a yearso we do feel we know at this point which journals to cancel > that will have the least impact on research and instruction at Cornell. > Once the cancellations are complete, we will list the titles on this site. " > "...we do feel we know at this point which journals to cancel > that will have the least impact on research and instruction at Cornell. > Once the cancellations are complete, we will list the titles on this site. "
Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives
I agree with Stevan: ArXiv just needs a note clarifying that it is only a time stamp and archiving machine, and takes no legal responsibility for its content because it does not 'read the content' (as referees do). It acts as a gateway provider. So the risk stays with the author. Within-arxiv plagiarism can easily be checked within the arxiv. Plagiarized papers will have a later time stamp, and thus the original author can be spotted and the later one(s) blamed. In contrast, scientific journals, serving to 'read and referee and check the content of the paper' and gaining the ownership are responsible in case the paper turns out to be plagiarized. So, journal publishers run a real legal risk, in that they do not check for plagiarism, - and they have to check this across all journals of all publishers, since they claimed it's new. The Schoen case and many others confirm: plagiarism in the e-age is a real and formidable because it is so easy to-do. Plagiarism only seemed to be rare, because it was not checked by the journals. An still wider spread abuse is self-plagiarism, copy-and-pasting from one's own older papers. Easy, 'legal', but a piece of misconduct by the author from the standpoint of the reader. http://www.iupap.org lists the recent London conference on plagiarism, misconduct of authors, referees, journal editors. Ebs ......... Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851 On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Yet another piece of evidence has appeared that seems to confirm that > whereas central archiving was historically the way in which self-archiving > began, it is not the fastest or best form for it to grow and spread today: > > The Nature headline is (as usual for the press) an exaggeration: > > "Critical comments threaten to open libel floodgate for physics archive" > http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/Dynapage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v426/n6962/full/426007b_fs.html > > "Legal concerns plague open access physics archive" > http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1087&language=1 > > but the facts seem to be that, across the years, some papers that > contained plagiarism or libel might have found their way into ArXiv's vast > (250,000 papers) and unvetted collection. http://www.arxiv.org > > I said "unvetted," but of course almost all those papers are > also submitted to peer-reviewed journals, which *do* vet them, > and when there have been any corrections to the unrefereed > preprint, the authors self-archive the refereed postprint too: > http://opcit.eprints.org/tdb198/opcit/ > > So the (tiny) problem of plagiarism and libel is with papers that have > *not* been peer-reviewed. > > ArXiv can make an effort to vet its daily submissions for plagiarism or > libel, but at nearly 4000 per month, this would be quite a task: > http://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions > > So the natural conclusions to draw from this seem to be the following: > > (1) OAI-interoperability has now made all OAI-compliant archives > equivalent: They can all be harvested and jointly searched. It no > longer makes any difference which archive a paper is actually deposited > in: http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/ > > (2) Not only are institutions in the best position to vet their own > research output before approving deposits in their own institutional > archives (probably on a departmental basis, optimally) > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html > but this vetting load is much better shouldered in a distributed way, > rather than having one centralized vettor for all of the planet's research > output (in physics, mathematics, or other disciplines). > > (3) Having institutional self-archived research output housed in the > institution's own archives also immunizes the archive from external > liabilities (such as plagiarizers from other institutions) but it also > makes it even more clear that -- contrary to what the Nature article > says it is, and perhaps contrary even to what the Physics ArXiv *thinks* > it is -- open-access archives are not *publishers*! They are merely a > means of providing open access to (refereed) publications (as well as > to their precursor unrefereed preprints). > > "Garfield: 'Acknowledged Self-Archiving is Not Prior Publication'" > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2239.html > >
Re: Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature
Copright /right of the Author law in Germany means: it serves the publishers the right of the form, format, layout of the paper, not the content. There is no rights management for the content. Thus this fits to not selfarchive the .pdf file of the publisher but the content in a form and format of the author. Ebs On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Peter Suber wrote: > At 09:48 AM 10/29/2003 +, you wrote: > > >On 28 Oct 2003 at 17:02, Peter Suber wrote: > > > > > > > > This elaboration can easily be read to include the author's directory > > > within an institutional repository. > > > > > > >but the next faq from Nature says that 'you may not distribute the > >PDF... on open archives'. So presumably you can still keep _your_ > >version of the article on an open archive, but not the one which was > >published in Nature. > > > >Regards > >Chris Korycinski > > > >St Andrews eprints administrator, Main Library > > > Chris, > You're right. But the FAQ makes clear that it's the PDF and its > distinctive look and feel, not the refereed text, that _Nature_ wants to > keep out of open archives. As long as authors may post the refereed text > to open archives, then we have all we need for open access. > > Best, > Peter > > > > > -- > Peter Suber > Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College > Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge > Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter > Editor, Open Access News blog > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ > peter.su...@earlham.edu > >
Re: Berlin Declaration on Open Access
Anpther system is the European Nuclear Physics Research Facility GSI Darmstadt is starting its Document Retrieval System DoRe as an open access selfarchiving of their documents, see http://www-new.gsi.de/search/DoRe/index.html and look at our dynamic graphics http://www-new.gsi.de/~harvest/graphics/index.html for it which gives the actual number and type (with/without Metadata) of documents. Also, this system, is in the making. Eberhard Hilf . Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851 On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote: > This is a report from Berlin 22 October. Today at 12:00 there will be a > press release plus the text of the Berlin Declaration, a historically > important step for the Open Access movements worldwide. In this > Declaration, all of Germany's principal scientific and scholarly > institutions, including the Max-Planck Society, as well as a growing > number of their counterparts from other countries (such as France's CNRS) > have signed their commitment to open access to scientific and scholarly > research. > > http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html > > The Berlin Declaration is just the beginning of a series of steps that > the signatories will be taking to promote open access. Among these steps, > the Max-Planck Society is Edoc, an open-access repository of all of the > research output of the Max-Planck Institutes' many research > laboratories. This is a truly remarkable concerted act of institutional > self-archiving, and a superb example for the research world at large. > > http://edoc.mpg.de > >
Re: Berlin Declaration on Open Access
The edoc System of the 85 Max Planck Society Research Institutes is a concept and an outlet for research documents which allows institutes to post selfarchived free fulltext documents of theirs, it does not enforce it, - and it is new and in the making. So there is more to come. Eberhard Hilf On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Tim Brody wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Stevan Harnad" .. > > I had trouble finding any full-text, open-access research articles in edoc.mpg.de > (literature that would otherwise be inaccessible without a subscription) in > edoc? > > All the best, > Tim. > >
Re: JHEP will convert from toll-free-access to toll-based access
JHEP was open and free and then sold to IoPP Inst.of Physics Publishing which is the publisher company of IoP, and is charged according to their rules. Thus it is no longer in the hands of their creators, and just has the same name. Ebs . Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851 On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kjellberg Sara http://www.doaj.org/ wrote: > > Thank you for your suggestion about [adding JHEP > http://jhep.sissa.it/ > to the Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org/ ] > but we think that JHEP is no longer an open access journal? On > their website it says: > > > "This financial support started in January 2002. JHEP has remained > > freely accessible throughout this year, while, as of January 2003, > > it will be made available on a very reasonable subscription basis, > > managed by IoPP. JHEP will thus no longer be free of charge, as > > in the first pioneering years but an exception will be made for > > developing and low income countries. Since the journal is not > > cost-free users libraries will now be asked to contribute in a > > fair and distributed fashion by paying annual fee for the new JHEP > > archive. The archive from 1997 to 2001 will remain freely available to > > the community." [http://jhep.sissa.it/IoPP_SISSA2.html] > > > > Do you have any other information regarding their present solution? I > > think it is sad that a journal, that have been free for so long, choose > > this way to continue. > > I'm afraid I know no more. You are right: JHEP cannot be listed as an > open-access journal. > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1812.html > http://jhep.cern.ch/JOURNAL/IoPP_SISSA2.html > > My interpretation is the following: This is a sign that Open Access > Publishing may be premature. JHEP used to be an open-access journal -- > and one of the most important, fast-growing, and highest-impact > open-access journals. But then it found it could no longer make ends > meet and became a toll-access journal. What I would recommend to JHEP is > that phsyicists join forces with the biologists' Bethesda Statement > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2877.html > and the Wellcome Trust Statement > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3030.html which both > propose funding to cover the costs of open-access research > publication. NSF should be urged to do the same for Physics research, > and then maybe JHEP will become able afford to become open-access > again. (It had relied on subsidy rather than publication charges in its > previous open-access incarnation.) > > But the situation with JHEP is brighter than it seems: Although JHEP is > no longer open-access, it is nevertheless "green", i.e. it supports > author self-archiving: > http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm > And not ot not only does JHEP support self-archiving, but its contents, > high-energy physics, are the ones that are by far the most advanced in > self-archiving -- so much so that the HEP sector of the Physics ArXiv is > virtually complete. That means that every HEP article (including all > those in JHEP) *is* openly accessible, because they have all been > self-archived. > > This demonstrates, yet again, that one can have open-access even without > open-access publishing. It also demonstrates that open access can > co-exist with toll-access: Far from preventing JHEP from converting to > toll-access, the fact that all the self-archived open-access > versions of its full-text contents were freely available online probably > helped it both to achieve its prominence and to find a willing > toll-access publisher in IOP when it needed them to make ends meet. > > I think this is still just a local phenomenon, though; we have to be > cautious about whether it will scale: It is unlikely that 100% open-access > for the entire refereed research literature (all 24,000 journals worth, > across all fields) will co-exist indefinitely with toll-access as the > means of cost-recovery. > http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1 > > But the important lesson is that *it does not matter* now! All researchers > who want open-access for their work can have it, now, without having > to worry or wait. It does not depend on transitions in journ
Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives
Dear Stevan and the list members, here are some arguments for 1. All physicists will publish in the ArXiv not before the year 2050, although the arxiv size is growing quadratically, not linearly with time. Earlier estimates [St. Harnad, http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm slide 25 are to be revised]. 2. Usage of repositories seem to be proportional to their size, but independent of absolute size. The full text you find at http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf/publications/arxiv-analyis.ps physicists will publish in the ArXiv not before the year 2050 Here are some more elaborate but rather audacious risky estimates (P.Ginsparg would know better). The ArXiv is unique in that it serves its own usage and submission logs. At present (after 146 months of service) there are 246.555 documents stored. The monthly rate of incoming new documents are at present 3.500. It rises linearly with time, see http://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions Next month there will be 24 papers more per month handed in than this month. This allows to integrate it to get an estimate, at which future time virtually all physicists would send in their prime papers to the ArXiv. Let us estimate the number of physicists worldwide to be 1.000.000 of which 10 % might be active as researchers, producing, say 2 papers per year. Then we have 200.000 prime physics papers per year. Integrating this yields to see them all in ArXiv to be in 44 years and six months from now, that is in the year 2050. Clearly, by then we will have passed more technical revolutions, so that this steady state extrapolation is not likely to happen. Other new developments may have a much steeper rise of spreading, notably the selfarchiving by the authors, their institutes or Universities and their libraries forming a distributed net of repositories. The advantage is its scalability, flexibility, the business model (distributed funding by the institutions of the creators of the documents), the retaining of the author's rights, the update possibility, and the acceptance spreading: to convince a large body such as a learned community to set up a central service such as the ArXiv for physics is much harder, then to convince a percentage of local distributed institutions and institutes (the multiple small versus one large barrier chance). The challenges are to set up the needed international standards, to allow intelligent search engines to serve the retrieval, to stimulate the discussion and communication between the authors, -known in the past of beeing very conservative but not considerate of their working habits, and not very colloquial about it, used that they are being taken care of and that someone else pays.. At present, the ArXiv is still unique in serving unconditional time stamp, and long term readability. Is the usage is proportional to the size of a repository? Reachout to and satisfaction of users of a repository may be estimated by the ratio of pageviews per month divided by the number of documents, This ratio is astonishingly similar for different respositories even of widely different size, may they contain documents or links. For Marenet with its 1.595 links it is 1.9 for MPIVwith its 3.027 links it is 3.6 for Physnet with its 5.759 links it is 4.2 for VAB with its 2.655 links it is 10.4 for ArXiv with its 245.056 docs it is 16.3 All numbers are astonishingly low, as we know from libraries usage of journals and books. Eberhard Hilf, h...@isn-oldenburg.de Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH at the Carl von Ossietzky University http://www.isn-oldenburg.de i On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Eberhard R. Hilf wrote: > > > the physics ArXiv has a linear increase of the number of papers put in per > > month, this gives a quadratic acceleration of the total content (growth > > rate of Data base), not linear. > > Maybe so. But slide 25 of > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm (slide 25) > still looks pretty linear to me. And it looks as if 100% was not only > *not* reached at this rate 10 years after self-archiving started in > physics in 1991, but it won't be reached for another 10 years or so... > > > Total amount by now may be at 10-15 % of all papers in physics. > > I count that as appallingly low, considering what is so easily > feasible (though stunningly higher than any other field!)... > > > Linear growth of input rate means the number of physicists and fields > > using it rises, while in each field (and physicist) a saturation is > > reached after a first exponential individual rise. > > Interesting, but the relevant target is 100% of physics (and all other > disciplines) -- yesterday! > > > Never there will be a saturation such that all papers will go this way, > > si
Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives
dear Colleagues, the physics ArXiv has a linear increase of the number of papers put in per month, this gives a quadratic acceleration of the total content (growth rate of Data base), not linear. Total amount by now may be at 10-15 % of all papers in physics. Linear growth of input rate means the number of physicists and fields using it rises, while in each field (and physicist) a saturation is reached after a first exponential individual rise. Never there will be a saturation such that all papers will go this way, since in different fields culture and habits and requirements are different. -- [That is why it is e.g. best, to keep letter distribution by horses at a remote island (Juist) alive since the medieval times]. Ebs . Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.; CEO (Geschaeftsfuehrer) Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN-home: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf email : h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel : +49-441-798-2884 fax : +49-441-798-5851 On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, ?iso-8859-1?Q?Hugo_Fjelsted_Alr=F8e?= wrote: > Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Those are all OAI-compliant archives, and they include both central, > > discipline-based archives and distributed institutional archives. With > > OAI-interoperability, it doesn't matter which kind of OAI archive a > > paper is in, but I am promoting university archives > > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling > > http://www.eprints.org/ > > rather than central ones (even though I founded a central one myself > > http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ ) because researchers' > > institutions (and > > their research funders) all share in the joint > > publish-or-perish interests > > (and rewards) of maximizing the impact of their research > > output. Central > > repositories and disciplines do not. (They are the common locus for > > research that is competing for impact.) Hence research institutions > > (and their funders) are in a position to encourage, > > facilitate, and even > > mandate (through an extension of the publish-or-perish > > carrot-and-stick) > > open-access self-archiving of their own research output in > > their own OAI > > archive by their researchers, whereas disciplines and central > > organizations (e.g., WTO, WHO, UNESCO) are not: > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html > > http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ > > I think it is still too early to write off any of the possible paths to > open access within the field of self-archiving (not that you do that). I > see a potentially very fruitful role for community-building archives > that focus on certain research areas. These could be facilitated or > mandated by some of the specialized public research institutions that, > together with universities and private companies, inhabit the research > landscape. I think of research institutions oriented towards applied > research within for instance environmental research, agriculture, public > health, education, community development, etc. Here, there is a clear > two-sided research communication: towards the public and towards other > researchers in the field. Open access thus serves two communicative > purposes, improving scholarly communication and improving public access > to research results, besides the complementary purpose of institutional > self-promotion. > > By "community-building", I mean that such archives can contribute to the > creation or development of the identity of a scholarly community in > research areas that go across the established disciplinary matrix of the > university world. I have myself inititated an archive in research in > organic agriculture (http://orgprints.org), which we hope will become a > center for international communication and cooperation in this area. > Scientific papers from research in organic agriculture are published in > many different specialized disciplinary journals as well as in general > scientific journals and journals focused at organic agriculture, and it > is not easy for researchers to keep track of all that is being > published. > > I know the same thing can in principle be done with OAI-compliant > university archives and a "disciplinary hub" or "research area hub", and > in ten years time, we may not be able to tell the difference. But today, > it is still not quite the same thing. Contributing to the community > would be detached from the usage of what is there, since the depositing > of papers would take place somewhere outside the hub. This makes it > dependent on the w
Re: Detecting Plagiarism
dear Sally,
I have on my desk papers, published in highly esteemed physics journals,
which are 80% Latex-identical, and still this has passed the referees
and the publishers.
(In a few cases it is even the same publisher and journal, could have
been the same referee even!!).
Thus a plagiarism test is definitely not done,even by the most
distinguished editors, referees, journals, publishers even in their own
house.
However: plagiarism is more subtle as that it could be seriously tackled
by text string overlapping.
1. text string copying is very seldom in physics at least.
2. most common is 'assimilation of the new findings and methods of others'
and not citing them (too seldom revealed by referees),
3. uttermost common, the (almost) common case is 'self-plagiarism',
that is, the author copies and pastes text strings of earlier papers into
the new file.
In the case, I have in front of me, it is this case: the author group
uses the file of an earlier accepted paper and pastes it to be the new
one, then cutting the last chapter ('new results'), replaces it by really
new never published outrageous new and important sophisticated new
results, keeps the earlier dull chapters as asked for by the publisher
such as Intrdouction, Used Method, Work of Others, Their shortcomings,
tools and expertise of the group, etc.
yes, and finally adapts the wording of the title and abstract.
So if I were to claim to have checked for plagiarism, I would have
detected this case.
So, if I were a referee I would have accepted it for its new findings
but would have asked the authors to shorten the paper by let them refer
to the earlier ones or use the Paranthesis 'from here on to there we just
cite the earlier paper.
How to cope with it:
Thus it is better, to publish a paper first, by either selfarchiving or
using the ArXiv, and let the community then all look at the findings.
After some comments authors will vote for 'living documents', where the
(above mentioned well written ) part form an original part of the new
paper, as a multi-file document with different timestamps for the
different parts.
Eberhard R. Hilf
.....
Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.;
CEO
Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH
an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet
Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg
http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/
my homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf
h...@isn-oldenburg.de
tel/Fax: +49-(0)-441-798-2884/5851
Service PhysNet for the EPS: http://www.physics-network.org
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Sally Morris wrote:
> Actually, it is pretty difficult for individual authors to pursue
> plagiarists, whereas in my experience journal publishers both can and do
> (often via their contacts with the publishers of the offending journals). I
> don't think publishers' *willingness* to do so has anything at all to do
> with copyright ownership; however, their *ability* to act immediately and
> decisively, in the courts if absolutely necessary, is strengthened by
> copyright ownership, as Martin Blume convincingly pointed out at the last
> Zwolle Group conference
>
> 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
Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives
dear Colleagues, I agree with Thomas that instead of 'enforce' you have to 'encourage' showing the chance to get better seen by his/her scientific community if he/she does some specific steps. As an example: our Department has stopped ordering all high price journals (keeping only those below 200$/a and Phys.Rev. and Phys Rev. Lett ,both because of access to PROLA, the APS Archive back to 1875..). And uses web-ordering and email copies pp now as a way to get information as prerequisite for doing research. However the other side of the medal is: the visibility of your own research worldwide. [To be read is the aim of research, we are not paid for reading, we only need reading]. We could show that this was bad: online documents not even found in google or scirus, etc. By adding metadata to them (using http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/services/mmm/ ) of PhysNet www.phys.vt.edu/PhysNet the visibility of the papers scored one of the first three places in google etc. and got more read (weblog) and cited. It is the advantage of repec that this information is offered to the authors. Second: the Research group homepages we measured with www.yourpositions.ch which ranged from .17 to .75 and could show that you easily can improve them using metadata to .85 and get a much better visibility. I agree Physics is a large field and authors/readers often do not know each other, in smaller fields this is different. Ebs
Re: Peer review under scrutiny from Royal Society
Dear Colleagues, distribute first, and quality filters then opens the multitude of vetting, quality control, open (signed by referee annotations) and blind refereeing. Thus the question should not be restricted to 'what is to do to improve the one channel of blind refereeing' but to which set of services could be envisaged to be useful, making use of that the content is already known to the experts via the web. Clearly, each paper on the web should have a note (metadata) on the status and level of quality filters it passed. See, e.g. talks at Cern 01 LIBER Conference, http://physnet.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/~hilf/vortraege/cern01/ and at Long Island University http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf/vortraege/nyc02/ Yours Eberhard
Re: Need for systematic scientometric analyses of open-access data
Thomas is right. that is why we check ourselves the physics journals and come up with only 55. Ebs . Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.; CEO Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ my homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: +49-(0)-441-798-2884/5851 Service PhysNet for the EPS: http://www.physics-network.org
Re: Grant for founding new open-access journals
in Physics we know of 55 Physics refereed ejournals alone. see http://www.physnet.de/PhysNet/journals.html In total, across all fields, the number of free full text ejournals should be far beyond 200, http://rzblx1.uni-regensburg.de/ezeit/index.phtml?bibid=A&colors=7&lang=en "the Electronic Journals Library" of Regensburg gives 3.309 in total!! in contrast to 12.831 not freely accessible. That is a ratio of 26 %. so, do not be that pessimistic. Ebs Hilf On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, hb...@tours.inra.fr wrote: > [This is a request from Helene Bosc to provide figures on the current > number of open-access *peer-reviewed* journals. She says that her > own estimate accords with mine: about 200 open-access journals out > of a total of 20,000 toll-access peer-reviewed journals in all. If > you have more exact data, please post it for all of us. S.H.] > > http://dmoz.org/Science/Publications/Journals_and_Magazines/Free_Online_Journals/ > http://www.freemedicaljournals.com/ > http://www.lcls.lib.il.us/ste/ejournals.htm > http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/largest.dtl > http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ > > je tombe sur les m?mes chiffres que toi pour les revues en libre acc?s > (200), dans mon estimation. Environ 150 en biologie/medecine avec 130 sur > PubMed Central . les cinquante autres se r?partissent dans les autres > disciplines. > Y a-t'il une liste quelque part? j'ai bien trouv? un site mais il met tout > (je veux seulement les revues avec peer review). J'en aurai besoin pour ma > page web car pour l'instant j'aligne des titres pour exemples mais je ne > peux pas aligner ind?finiment et je pr?f?rerais mettre un lien sur un site. > > Helene Bosc > Unite Physiologie de la Reproduction > et des Comportements > UMR 6073 INRA-CNRS-Universite de Tours > 37380 Nouzilly > France > > http://www.tours.inra.fr/ > TEL : 02 47 42 78 00 > FAX : 02 47 42 77 43 > e-mail: hb...@tours.inra.fr >
Re: List of eprint archives
dear Peter, the OAi dataproviders link is of course http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites.pl What should be set up is a list of research specific field services which lead to open access documents of distributed sources which do not (yet) have OAi copliance, such as PhysNet, MareNet, Math-Net, etc. see http://www.physics-network.org/PhysNet/physdoc.html http://marenet.uni-oldenburg.de/MareNet/maredoc.html http://www.math-net.de (did not work this morning) (with MPRESS, and acta mathematica,..) Ebs . Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.; CEO Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ my homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: +49-(0)-441-798-2884/5851 Service PhysNet for the EPS: http://www.physics-network.org On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Peter Suber wrote: > At 09:48 AM 9/24/2002 +1000, you wrote: > >Greetings Professor Suber > > > >one thing that has just occurred to me: is there a list, that you know of, > >of institutional or subject-based eprint archives? Such a document, if it > >existed, would of course need continually to be updated. But it seems to > >me it would be a useful resource, both for researchers and for those > >contemplating founding an archive. > > > >This seems such an obvious thing, I can't believe someone hasn't thought > >of it. Some of the articles I have found list examples of eprint archives, > >but none that I have encountered is comprehensive. I have had a brief look > >on your Sources page http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/sources.htm and > >elsewhere, but without success. If you know of something like what I am > >looking for, I would love to know as I will link it from eprintblog. If > >not, I would be interested in compiling one. > > > >Regards > > > >Guy > > > >Guy Aron > >Deputy Team Leader, Business & Social Sciences > >Library Resources & Access Unit > >RMIT University Library > >Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology > >GPO Box 2476V > >Melbourne, Victoria 3001 > >AUSTRALIA > >phone 03 9925244 > >fax 03 9925 9050 > >email guy.a...@rmit.edu.au > > Guy, > I hope you don't mind if I answer your question to the FOS > Forum. Others surely have the same question. > The best list I know is the list of registered archives maintained by > the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). The only reason the list is not > complete is that some people build OAI-compliant archives and then, for > some reason, neglect to register them. One way to get a glimpse of > existing but unregistered archives is to consult the list of sites using > eprints software. The new FIGARO site maintains two lists, one for > institutional archives and one for disciplinary archives; it's not more > complete than the others today, but it might become more complete over time. > > OAI list of registered archives > http://www.signal-hill.org/nav/archives2.html > > OAI list of registered service providers (not archives but necessary > complements to archives) > http://www.openarchives.org/service/listproviders.html > > GNU Eprints list of sites > http://software.eprints.org/#sites > > The two lists at FIGARO (both institutional and disciplinary) > http://www.signal-hill.org/nav/archives2.html > > If anyone knows of better lists, please post them to this forum or let me > know about them. > > Peter >
Re: Paper not accepted by a journal - still a pre-print?
thanks for the clarification. Let us call it 'scientific documents', and each archive specifies clearly, what kind and type of documents it serves. By the way, the 'preprint idea' was born by Enrico Fermi in 1932, a famous physicist, who boosted his career by deciding to send copies of his documents by mail to all relevant to his work laboratories in the world. That was very well received. ......... Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.; CEO Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ my homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: +49-(0)-441-798-2884/5851 Service PhysNet for the EPS: http://www.physics-network.org
Re: Paper not accepted by a journal - still a pre-print?
Here follows a rather lengthy discussion partially in broken english; maybe you can wait for the summarizing until the dust settled. Eberhard R. Hilf (ERH) :: ERH: > > Refereed means in an archive, that the paper has passed. Stevan Harnad: > This is incorrect. This is not what "refereed" means, and here, as a > reply to the above query, it can only cause confusion. "Refereed" does > not mean in an archive; and it is unclear what it would/should mean to > "pass" in an archive. Dear Stevan, not confusion but broken english on my side: I meant: If an archive registers a paper with the tag 'refereed', this paper has to have been accepted by a refereeing process,- not necessarily of the archive itself, but of any publisher, journal, institution, which has applied a professional refereeing system. [Of course the copyright must allow the storage of such a paper in the archive]. Clear advantage of the e-age: separation of archives and refereeing process is made possible. Stevan: > "Refereed" means having successfully passed peer review by a > refereed, journal, a refereed conference proceedings, or some other > established and recognized form of peer review. ERH: that is what I meant. ERH: > > Otherwise it is 'sent back' and the author can do what he wants. > > As long as a journal has not accepted it. Stevan: > Unclear: Sent by by whom, from what, for what reason? ERH: That is what most authors do: if not accepted by one journal, they send it to another, and repeat this process until it is accepted somewhere, going down the ladder of esteem of quality of the journals. [In physics we start with PRL and end with ..] Normally when a journal rejects the paper, 'there is no trace left' (no time stamp of 'I am the first'; no public note 'rejected by'). The author is set back to the status quo ante. Clear advantage of the e-age: time stamps independent of refereeing are possible. Stevan: > If you mean a paper is unrefereed until/unless it has been accepted by > a refereed journal, that is correct. But then please make it clear that > what you mean here is that it has been submitted to and refereed by (and > "sent back by") a journal (etc.), not an archive. The poster's question > was about whether to archive a journal-rejected article in an archive > as "refereed" or "unrefereed." (The rationale for the question had > presumably been that in a sense it HAS been refereed, only it has > failed to be accepted.) Hence the clear answer to the poster is: if the > journal has rejected it, it is not "refereed," and should be archived > as unrefereed. ERH: that is what I meant. ERH: > > P.S.: But be aware: in an e-archive you can have many more subtle and > > precise levels of certification. And they are an advantage and make > > the e-print so much more powerful than just the refereed/unrefereed, > > saying nothing about the quality of the act. Stevan: > It is important to point out that the above is not a fact, but merely a > speculation by Ebs about a hypothetical future. The fact is that it is > journal refereeing -- and especially the established quality level and > standards (and impact factor) of the particular journal that has accepted > the paper in question -- that provides the only official certification > at the present time. Nor is there yet any evidence whatsoever of > "more subtle and precise levels of certification." Unless Ebs can > cite references indicating exactly what certifiers he is referring to > (and what the evidence it that they are "more subtle and precise" than > standard peer review, it is important that he make it clear that he is > merely speculating at this time. ERH: Stevan, not hypothecial future but personal vision and possibility. The future is not 'coming over us' but we, the community of professionals, are in charge of having visions, discussing them, and actively influencing developments. ERH: > > So, create a field -- "certification" -- and give it a list of > > possiblities, say c0 - c7. > > > > For example: > > > > c=0 author thinks paper should be archived Stevan: > This seems trivial. Would an author self-archive a paper that he did not > think should be archived? The AUTHORNAME tag seems to cover this. ERH: not trivial, but systematic. There are many authors, which do not fulfill c=0: anonymae, pp. ERH: > > c=1 author is a professional by attached homepage showing his PhD in the > > field or his prof. position in a profess. institution of the field. Stevan: > This is not the "certification" tag but the DEPARTMENT/INSTITUTION tag > (and URL) (and perhap
Re: Paper not accepted by a journal - still a pre-print?
Of course: 'preprint' and 'unrefereed'. Refereed means in an archive, that the paper has passed. Otherwise it is 'sent back' and the author can do what he wants. As long as a journal has not accepted it. If a journal has accepted it, and their policy is not to have referees at all, then it is 'journal article' and 'unrefereed'. I know of no such journal. Ebs P.S.: But be aware: in an e-archive you can have many more subtle and precise levels of certification. And they are an advantage and make the e-print so much more powerful than just the refereed/unrefereed, saying nothing about the quality of the act. So, create a field -- "certification" -- and give it a list of possiblities, say c0 - c7. For example: c=0 author thinks paper should be archived c=1 author is a professional by attached homepage showing his PhD in the field or his prof. position in a profess. institution of the field. c=2 a technical check has been made (formats, metadata, etc. by the archive) c=3 a library expert has read the paper c=4 a loose screening has been done by an external expert of that field (topical screening) c=5 a thorough blind refereeing has been done by a real expert. c=6 paper has been annotated, commented by other professionals openly. and so forth. Since you as an archive will store the paper right from the beginning, you just keep changing the value of c and keep the paper. Nothing is rejected, but the user is told what certification status the paper has. Yours Ebs Further reading: E.R.Hilf and H.-J.Waetjen: Scientific Refereeing in a Distributed World http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf/vortraege/cern01/ ..... Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.; CEO Institute for Science Networking Oldenburg GmbH an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ my homepage: http://isn-oldenburg.de/~hilf h...@isn-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: +49-(0)-441-798-2884/5851
Re: The True Cost of the Essentials
dear Mark, following the discussion on both channels I am worried about the 'abstract' nature of it. APS asks for a solid proposition for a future scenario with a sound business model? It seems that you start from assuming that the short cut of free access full texts available on the web from the author to the reader (by either his server, distributed services or central archives) is inevitable. Thats fine. The future role of the learned societies such as APS as the leading one in Physics is the same as ever: serve the physicists with professional services for their daily work. APS as society's information management competence center instead of document distribution center. That means here: a bundle of services to manage scientific documents: * intelligent personalized retrieval * crossreference across all sources, including inst.-webservers, * virtual subfield collections and alerting * professional offline refereeing (refereeing after dissemination of the documents, and independent of where it resides (even across publishers of course); closest to this is the successful 'living reviews of Gen.Relativity', although far too slow), that is referees who are experts (and might even be paid by APS) to oversee actively their field and the new papers and read them and referee/summarize openly. * permanently updating collection of authors tools to help them writing and transferring to MathML/XML in a 'state of the art' way. [Revtex 4 was in that respect at that time the best tool by concept]. * etc. The business model follows from this: * registered users [Members of the society APS or associated societies (DPG) for free, who paid with their fee: thus contracts with the other major societies (how much per member would be an estimate?] * registered Institutes, Libraries * anyone from Industry by registration (highest fee,..). Example: we as a small physicist group of 10 pay at present 1.000,-$ per year and person for computer programmes, and a virtual share of about 100,-$ per year and person to the library for journals, and about 50,-$ per year per person for society membership fees. We always use the computers, but miss a surrounding to use MAthML-Physics etc., never go to the library since the web exists, and see virtually nothing from our society (apart from the 17 docs per year of NJP..). Estimate for the above mentioned services 100,-$ per year and person, would add in physics to more than APS and those few other physics societies (IoPP?, JPS?, not DPG) who are willing to serve and improve those services would ever need? [500.000 physicists worldwide make up thus for 50 Mill. $ per year, enough?] Transition period: charge the printed copies of APS much higher, and reduce the online versions gradually to zero. Dear Mark, I am shure you will quickly bomb down these naive propositions. But still I would be glad for an answer. Since DPG is starting a server, where we invited APS to join with services and which could serve as a marketing place for these services http://www.fachportal-physik.de/ Ebs ......... Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.; CEO Institute for Science Networking an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Oldenburg Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ my homepage: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/~hilf h...@physnet.uni-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: 0049-441-798-2884/5851 PhysNet for the EPS: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Mark Doyle wrote: > On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 01:08 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > > I have invited Mark Doyle of APS to specify concretely what parallel > > measures he is recommending that BOAI pursue in order to ensure true > > archiving in the long-term. BOAI's mandate is to hasten and facilitate > > open access for the entire peer-reviewed corpus, now, but if there are > > concrete parallel measures that do not retard the primary objective, > > I am sure that BOAI will be happy to take them on board. Unfortunately, > > Mark's (somewhat piqued) reply is far too vague to consititute a > > concrete > > recommendation: > > Suffice it to say that a concrete recommendation will be forthcoming (not > in days, but months most likely). My main goal is to raise awareness at > institutions > and libraries that want to promote non-publisher archiving of research > articles. They > should consider carefully what kind of infrastructure should be built and > understand what costs are involved so that can be covered in any new > economic model that is to supplant the subscription model. Such > understanding > may be helpful for extant journals trying to undo the subscription model > and > for establishing alternative journals on a sound financial footing > without > losing some important benefits provided by the status quo. > > Cheers, > Mark > > Mark Doyle > Manager, Product Development > The American Physical Society > do...@aps.org >
Re: Napster: stealing another's vs. giving away one's own
dear Arthur, the solution is that the publishers open their archive at least for a subset of their metadata of their published documents. The best vehicle is that the publisher registers as Open Archive Data provider. The refund is that their journal articles are better found, and thus more cited and more bought and ordered. If the publisher does not want to be OAi data provider itself for now, it could export these metadata subset to other OAi service providers. This latter way has the advantage for the publisher, that the publisher can choose which of the registered service providers to choose and individually decide on what stack of metadata. As an example: IoPP (Inst. of Physics Publishing) of the IoP Physical Society of UK had decided that way. We still hope that APS will join. For the realization, see http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet/physdoc.html Search goes across ArXiv, all IoPP journals, and PhysDoc. Any misuse as you imagined, would thus immediately detected by the searcher. Finally, do not worry, when hiring staff, we referees do not just count papers from publication lists, but check and read and know the scene and persons... Yours Ebs . Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.; CEO Institute for Science Networking an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Oldenburg Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ my homepage: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/~hilf h...@physnet.uni-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: 0049-441-798-2884/5851 PhysNet for the EPS: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet
Re: What exactly is the digital preservation problem?
there is no problem. Future generations will only archive e-documents. Analog books in their scanned in form. Archived will be e-documents which are worthwhile by their content. These are worthwhile to transfer to archive into archivable formats. These are known (SGML and their derivates address this task) or currently finalized (MathMl, CML, .. as derivatives of SGML). Only these are able to conserve the full context (in contrast to pdf, ps ,..) Programmes to excerpt browsable images from archivable formats will be always provided by the respective generations. Money as said has always had the key role, especially in science. But the other way round as assumed in the earlier discussion: Whenever science found something worthwhile, society has put in the money. And archiving anything worth it of e-docs is a small amount compared to moon-landings, elementary-particles-accelerators, supercomputers for quantum field theory calculations for questions like 'is the coupling constant in QCD 250 MEV or different' and the like. So one should not start with costs but with the content necessities. All active scientists in the meeting 'Long Term Archiving of Documents in Physics' (http://www.iupap.org) did emphasize that e.g. not all prime scientific papers are worthwile to be archived on the long run, (many of them 'marginal content') but content extractions (by the authors or experts) written with the aim at being concise, full content, understandable on the long run. [Example: noone reads the original papers of Einstein, but all of us use the equation, shure enough not in the form, Einstein wrote them, but with the present mathematical tools and knowledge]. Comments to me for summarizing or directly for the list. Eberhard R. Hilf 4.1.2002 ..... Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.; CEO Institute for Science Networking an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Oldenburg Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg ISN: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ my homepage: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/~hilf h...@physnet.uni-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: 0049-441-798-2884/5851 PhysNet for the EPS: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet
Re: Should Publishers Offer Free-Access Services?
or www.eps.org/PhysDoc . Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.; CEO Institute for Science Networking an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Oldenburg Ammerlaender Heerstr.121 D-26129 Oldenburg ISN: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/ my homepage: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/~hilf h...@physnet.uni-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: 0049-441-798-2884/5851 did you check our services? PhysNet for the EPS: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet
Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)
deat Arthur, what would be a very rough estimate if APS would let their journals free online but print costly and therefore raise the membership fee of APS by what amount. [Numbers such as: DPG has 40.000 members, fee raising by 10 % would amount to 200.000 $ or 200 articles..] Ebs
Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives
dear Stevan, thanks a lot for your somehwat summary of the topic up to now. I agree with what you say. All paths leading to the same destination. Indeed, we work on all three lines: encourage the authors, the institutions to set up selfarchiving with our help or gate or not and promote central archives. I now daw you img files . Ebs
Re: HighWire Press's Free Online Archive
Steve said the only way is using OAi-compliance by the author to selfarchive his documents before and through refereeing. The word only is too much of a load. In Physics (and Mathematics) since a long time authors can selfarchive their documents, without having to install any software or learn about OAi. They are automatically included into the OAi scheme by the OAi compliant service providers by using PhysDoc (or Math-Net) as gateways who take care of their document being included. How does it work: 1. author puts his document on his own server. 2. author fills webform http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/services/mmm/ and adds or attaches the resulting (for him ununderstandable metadata infested 'shadow file' to his document. [for an example of a shadow file see my own documents, back to 1968, see http://www.smallsystems.de/publications/metadocs/ebs.kernspaltung.html or all of http://www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/Docs/THEO3/information/publications/] 3. The document is found by PhysDoc-OAi compliant service provider, see http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/oai/query.php The PhysDoc crew takes care to track all (for shure to come) changes of the OAi compliance regulations in the future. If the author does not want metadata, then he agreed to the inferior query results of PhysDocI http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet/physdoc.html. The posting first, refereeing then is not the problem in the e-age, since it allows richer variety of vetting, quality filtering, peer reviewing for some, but sufficiently for effective research search engines, richer metadata and ref encoding, etc. Ebs
Re: Interview with Elsevier Science
ask him for the new business model this list may propose: put the full documents available online via OAi compliant port. let the authors put their own documents in final form on their own webservers (where e.g. in Physics PhysDoc will find it) http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet/physdoc.html Make money with subscription of the bunch of add-on services (such as www.scirus.com). Develop more seriously intelligent services for sciences. Ebs
Re: No Free Lunches: We Should Resist the Push to Rush Research Online
why this renewed discussion on long-time settled topic? 1. Scientific work is best bolstered by instant complete information on what colleatues anywhere do. > Thus instant free full text publication of newest results is mandatory. Realization is by local Webserver of scientist, institute, department or their university no technical obstacle anymore. The research colleagues anywhere in the world in the same field need this urgency most but understand best the content and may better judge than any journal referee, and decide on their own what they read. 2. The broader Science Community needs to be informed on the progress of adjacent fields, on necessary side information in their field, the public should be informed with a high quality standard, that is adding the information to the document, that the science community checked the content and found it trustable. > Thus we need quality filters. 3. Improvement of quality filtering instead of just one blind refereeing. With this the quality filters come after online-publication. This opens the chance to diversify the quality filter labels and work. Examples: PhysDoc http://physnet.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet/physdoc.html serve only documents of authors which are registered as professionals at professional Physics Institutions. ArXiv www.arxiv.org serves only documents where the author thinks it to be worthwhile to be frozen and presented permanently. Dissonline www.dissonline.org serves only theses which have been refereed and approved by the faculty, GAP German Academic Publisher, a joint venture of some German Universities will serve a successive set of quality filters, readable by the respective labe: acceptance by author, research group, institute, university (with refereeing), cross refereeing by another GAP University expert, prime refereeing. Thus instead of having just two types of papers: preprints and prime research refereed articles the authors can really choose between a wide variety of quality filtered forms which fits to the respective individual need. Thus Science gets new more professional ways to exchange information with transferring the quality labels. Eberhard R. Hilf
Re: FOS Newsletter Excerpts
The discussion reply is a misunderstanding: from paper age with publish first, with ONE type of peer reviewing (the referee stays anonymous to the author), distribute then to some libraries, now in the digital age we have distribute first, post on the web by the author or his institution's server and referee afterwards. Here it makes no sense to stick with just the one type of anonymous peer-refereeing the publishers offered, but should and will see a full set of refereeing levels (certification levels) including peer referees who may be either anonymous or not. Since the personal anonymous advice to the author to rewrite, say bad english, comes too late to stop distribution anyway, the refereeing needs will be focussing on open annotations, that is the referee signs (as we are use to in mathematics anyhow). Ebs Hilf h...@physnet.uni-oldenburg.de 13.7.2001 On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Bernard Lang wrote: > > > I noticed that many people on this list seem genuinely afraid of > > hurting the feelings of publishers. Stevan gave me that impression in > > our latest exchange, to which I stopped replying because I had the > > impression that his eagerness to defend publishers (in the classical > > sense) was hiding facts I did not know about. > > No hidden facts. Just one very open one. It is possible to free the > entire refereed journal corpus online (all 20,000+ journals, all > 2,000,000+ articles annually), NOW, without asking or waiting for > publishers to do anything at all. > > http://cogsci.sootn.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm > > Hence I think it is unnecessary and a waste of time and breath to > fulminate against publishers, when there is something much more useful > and effective that we could all be doing instead. > > Moreover, peer review is essential; it is what makes the refereed > corpus a REFEREED corpus. Publishers currently implement peer review; > it is an essential service; and there is no reason they should nto > continue doing it, come what may. > > So I see absolutely no value in publisher-baiting. It is neither fair > nor useful. > > So, no hidden facts. Complete disclosure. > > > Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk > Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu > Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582 > Computer Science fax: +44 23-80 592-865 > University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ > Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/ > SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM > > NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free > access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the > American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01): > > > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html > > You may join the list at the site above. > > Discussion can be posted to: > > american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org >
Re: Copyright, Embargo, and the Ingelfinger Rule
The Ingelfinger rule is not a rule or law but a policy of some publishers as of 1969, that is of the time referee first, publish/distribute then. With the online age the authors should serve the scientific progress as best they can. That is publish/distribute first, using their own/their institution's server, see for an example in physics http://physnet.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet/physdoc.html and thus open the discussion with colleagues, allow vetting, annotations, peer refereeing. The only rule is the copyright rule called 'author's rights' in german law: Every author should clearly pin down his will as part of any document. Peer reviewing of a publisher is an add on service and needs honour and protection: that is distributing reviewed documents in the form including the changes as complying with the referees needs to refer to where the information came from, that is citing the source at the publisher. Recommended is the the 'ten-page checklist for authors by Wilfrid Hodges, http://www.maths.qmw.ac.uk/~wilfrid/copyright.html A collection of other sources with regard to copyright may be found at http://elfikom.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/bmbf/copyright.html Yours E. R. Hilf
