[GOAL] REMINDER: Expressions of Interest in Hosting OR2016 Due by Aug. 24
Aug. 14, 2014 Read it online: http://bit.ly/1rE2cKe CALL for Expressions of Interest in Hosting the Annual Open Repositories Conference, 2016 The Open Repositories Steering Committee seeks Expressions of Interest from candidate host organizations for the 2016 Open Repositories Annual Conference. Proposals from all geographic areas will be given consideration. Important dates The Open Repositories Steering Committee is accepting Expressions of Interest to host the OR2016 conference until August 24th 2014. Shortlisted sites will be notified before the end of September 2014. Background Candidate institutions must have the ability to host a four-day conference of approximately 300-500 attendees (OR2014 http://or2014.helsinki.fi/ held recently in Helsinki, Finland drew more than 450 people). This includes appropriate access to conference facilities, lodging, and transportation, as well as the ability to manage a range of supporting services (food services, internet services, and conference social events; conference web site; management of registration and online payments; etc.). The candidate institutions and their local arrangements committee must have the means to support the costs of producing the conference through attendee registration and independent fundraising. Fuller guidance is provided in the Open Repositories Conference Handbook https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/or11/Open+Repositories+Conference+Handbook on the Open Repositories wiki. Expressions of Interest Guidelines Organisations interested in proposing to host the OR2016 conference should follow the steps listed below: 1. Expressions of Interest (EoIs) must be received by August 24th, 2014. Please direct these EoIs and any enquiries to OR Steering Committee Chair Carol Minton Morris cmmor...@duraspace.org. 2. As noted above, the Open Repositories wiki has a set of pages at Open Repositories Conference Handbook https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/or11/Open+Repositories+Conference+Handbook which offer guidelines for organizing an Open Repositories conference. Candidate institutions should pay particular attention to the pages listed at Preparing a bid before submitting an EoI. 3. The EoI must include: * the name of the institution (or institutions in the case of a joint bid) * an email address as a first point of contact * the proposed location for the conference venue with a brief paragraph describing * the local amenities that would be available to delegates, including its proximity to a reasonably well-served airport 4. The OR Steering Committee will review proposals and may seek advice from additional reviewers. Following the review, one or more institutions will be invited to submit a detailed proposal. 5. Invitations to submit a detailed proposal will be issued before the end of September 2014; institutions whose interest will not be taken up will also be notified at that time. The invitations sent out will provide a timeline for submitting a formal proposal and details of additional information available to the shortlisted sites for help in the preparation of their bid. The OR Steering Committee will be happy to answer specific queries whilst proposals are being prepared. About Open Repositories Since 2006 Open Repositories has hosted an annual conference that brings together users and developers of open digital repository platforms. For further information about Open Repositories and links to past conference sites, please visit the OR home page: http://sites.tdl.org/openrepositories/. Subscribe to announcements about Open Repositories conferences by joining the OR Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/open-repositories. Please feel free to reflect this call for Expressions of Interest out through your communities. Thank you! The Open Repositories Conference Steering Committee ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Open access: What price affordability?
I have had an editorial published in ecancer journal with the above title. The final two paragraphs read: [W]hat if funders, governments and research institutions ceased providing money for researchers to pay to publish, and instead insisted that they continue publishing in subscription journals-but always self-archived their papers in OA repositories (green OA)? Would this not mean that publishers would have to compete with repositories in access provision? And would they not as a result lower their prices? And if they did, could we not hope to see both the accessibility and affordability problems resolved? Some will respond that in the wake of the pushback against the Finch Report, and the subsequent gold OA policy announced in 2013 by Research Councils UK, the trend now is in any case to introduce green OA mandates. But these mandates still sometimes expect researchers to prefer gold OA, and are usually accompanied by APC funds. Moreover, the requirements of a green OA mandate can in any case be met by paying to publish in a gold OA journal. For so long as funders offer to pay their APCs, therefore, most researchers will likely choose that option, if only because it is much easier. http://ecancer.org/journal/editorial/41-open-access-what-price-affordability .php ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Open access: What price affordability?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: I have had an editorial published in ecancer journal with the above title. The final two paragraphs read: [W]hat if funders, governments and research institutions ceased providing money for researchers to pay to publish, and instead insisted that they continue publishing in subscription journals—but always self-archived their papers in OA repositories (green OA)? Would this not mean that publishers would have to compete with repositories in access provision? And would they not as a result lower their prices? And if they did, could we not hope to see both the accessibility and affordability problems resolved? I would find this completely unacceptable. Firstly the publishers have always set the rules , on price, embargo and re-use. This will strengthen their position as the controllers, not services, of publication. For me it would mean the scholarly poor could often not read an article till 2 years after publication, could not datamine it for commercial purposes, could not re-use it for teaching without permission (teaching = commercial), could not aggregate into reviews, could not re-use diagrams. It would be no better than what we have now. And it would never happen because the funders have never been able to exercise enough power to mandate authors and universities have never managed to enforce anything. We would have to employ a lot more police. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Open access: What price affordability?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: [W]hat if funders, governments and research institutions ceased providing money for researchers to pay to publish, and instead insisted that they continue publishing in subscription journals—but always self-archived their papers in OA repositories (green OA)? Would this not mean that publishers would have to compete with repositories in access provision? And would they not as a result lower their prices? And if they did, could we not hope to see both the accessibility and affordability problems resolved? It's enough to cease providing money for researchers to pay to publish (gold OA) -- no need to insist that they continue publishing in subscription journals, just that the always self-archive their paper in their institutional OA repository (green OA) immediately upon acceptance for publication. Nature will take care of the rest (a transition from today's access-denial, embargoes and fool's gold to universal green OA, fair gold, and all the re-use rights for which PM-R is so impatient (but which he has no better or faster way to reach). (By the way, the repositories' automated request-copy http://j.mp/RequestCopyButton Button https://www.google.com/webhp?tbm=blggws_rd=ssl#q=harnad+buttontbm=blg will tide over any publisher green OA embargoes with just one click from a user to request -- and one click from the author to provide -- a single copy for research purposes.) Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/ . *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog **4/28* http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/ Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2012) Open Access Mandates and the Fair Dealing Button http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/. In: *Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online* (Rosemary J. Coombe Darren Wershler, Eds.) http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/ Stevan Harnad On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Richard Poynder ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk wrote: I have had an editorial published in ecancer journal with the above title. The final two paragraphs read: [W]hat if funders, governments and research institutions ceased providing money for researchers to pay to publish, and instead insisted that they continue publishing in subscription journals—but always self-archived their papers in OA repositories (green OA)? Would this not mean that publishers would have to compete with repositories in access provision? And would they not as a result lower their prices? And if they did, could we not hope to see both the accessibility and affordability problems resolved? I would find this completely unacceptable. Firstly the publishers have always set the rules , on price, embargo and re-use. This will strengthen their position as the controllers, not services, of publication. For me it would mean the scholarly poor could often not read an article till 2 years after publication, could not datamine it for commercial purposes, could not re-use it for teaching without permission (teaching = commercial), could not aggregate into reviews, could not re-use diagrams. It would be no better than what we have now. And it would never happen because the funders have never been able to exercise enough power to mandate authors and universities have never managed to enforce anything. We would have to employ a lot more police. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
