|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive [BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]boaiforum messages[BOAI] new fulltext archive of literature in psychologyFrom: Ulrich Herb <u.herb AT sulb.uni-saarland.de> Dear List, the Saarland University and State Library (SULB) in Germany with its special subject collection Psychology has launched a new service: PsyDok is our new, searchable open-access archive of literature in psychology. Its coverage ranges from articles and preprints to magazine stories and gray literature. PsyDok follows the principles of the BOAI. PsyDok supports the ideas of "Self-Archiving" and of free and ↵ unrestricted online availability of scientific information. We are especially interested in archiving preprints. PsyDok can be found under this URL: http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de PsyDok is under construction because we are still gathering documents. Please support PsyDok by spreading this news, by linking to PsyDok and of course by publishing documents in PsyDok. The site is in German, an English translation may follow soon. Ulrich Herb SSG Psychologie / Projekt Digitale Psychologie Information Saarländische Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Postfach 15 11 41 66041 Saarbrücken Tel: 0681/ 302-2570 Fax: 0681/ 302-2796 http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/ [BOAI] Free Access vs. Open AccessFrom: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
BioMedCentral's "Open Access Now" is a useful newsletter, but its ↵ first editorial contains some inadvertently misleading information that needs to be corrected. What http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/#article1 actually said was this: > "Free Access is not Open Access" > > "There seems to be a general misunderstanding that the aim of the > Open Access movement is to make the scientific research literature > free online. But there is a difference between "free access" ↵ > and "open access"... > > "The benefits and promise of Open Access will only be realized > when this distinction is clear in the minds of authors and > publishers. Only then can the literature move from being `free' > to being truly `open'." I will quote/comment the full (short) editorial in a moment to show why I think what it *should* instead have said is this: "Open Access Calls for Both Free Access and Open Usage" "There seems to be a general misunderstanding that the aim of the Open Access movement is *only* to make the scientific research literature free online... That is the first aim, but it also aims to make it fully usable." The difference between the two messages is substantial. We are very far from having free access to the refereed research literature, even though it is within reach; vast amounts of potential research impact are for this reason being needlessly lost; and it is free access that is urgently needed to put an end to this loss. What free access we do have today, however, is not constrained by any usage constraints. Hence the difference between "free access" and "open access" is ↵ merely hypothetical right now: What is needed is more free access, not an extension of free access to open access. To imply otherwise is simply to saddle the research community with yet another red herring, instead of what it really needs. Here is the current situation, in rough practical and statistical terms: (a) What the BOAI seeks is unrestricted toll-free full-text online access to the entire refereed research corpus (20,000 journals, 2,000,000 articles per year). http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml (b) The way to achieve this is for researchers to (1) publish their papers in open-access journals whenever suitable ones exist (under 5% currently) and, for the rest of their papers (95%), to (2) self-archive them in their own institutional archives. [(1) is BOAI Strategy 2, and (2) is BOAI Strategy 1.] http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ (c) Any form of restricted, gerrymandered online access (such as "ebrary"-based access that prevents down-loading, saving or printing-off) would not be open access (but there is none in sight so far to speak of). That is all there is to it! Now, for those who are interested, a more detailed quote/comment of the full (short) BMC editorial: > Free Access is not Open Access Not necessarily, in theory; but in reality and in practise, *all* of the growing body of research today that is free-access is also open-access: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt It can all be downloaded, saved, grepped, printed out, quote/commented, and the URL can be sent to anyone who wishes to do likewise. All data therein can also be used, *exactly* as they could be if read and copied from the on-paper version. (It is simply an error, in other words, to think of refereed, published articles as analogous to the genome database or to software. It consists instead of texts, which are written to be printed off, read, used, applied, built-upon, quoted/commented, and cited. There is no question -- or need -- of republishing them or altering them. They are already freely accessible to anyone with access to the Web, and the only ones to update them are the authors; everyone else must settle for quote/commenting, applying and citing.) > There seems to be a general misunderstanding that the aim of the Open > Access movement is to make the scientific research literature free > online. But there is a difference between "free access" and ↵ "open access". The aim of the Open Access movement *is* to make the scientific (and scholarly) refereed-journal research literature -- full-text -- accessible toll-free online. Though there may be hypothetical ways toll-free online access could be constrained so as to prevent downloading, grepping, or printing, no such thing is happening. All the free-access literature is also open-access. > This distinction was part of what motivated the Bethesda definition of > Open Access Principles that we published in the first issue of Open Access > Now (July 14, 2003). That definition clearly states that access to the > information should be free, but in addition the work should be open to > re-use and redistribution "Re-use and redistribution" has to be thought out more fully and ↵ clearly than it is in the Bethesda definition -- insofar as refereed journal articles are concerned. We are not talking about shared empirical databases here but about the articles that appear in the 20,000 existing (toll-access) peer-reviewed journals. The use one makes of those full texts is to read them, print them off, quote/comment them, cite them, and use their *contents* in further research, building on them. What is "re-use"? And what is "redistribution" (when everyone on ↵ the planet with access to the web has access to the full-text of every such article)? > and that it should be deposited immediately > upon publication in a public online repository (such as PubMed Central). For the 95% solution, BOAI-1, depositing those toll-access articles in the author's own institutional repository is the *means* by which they are made free-access, by definition. For the remaining 5% (BOAI-2), the fact that they are published by an open-access journal *entails* (again, by definition) that they must be made freely accessible online *somehow*. Likewise depositing them in a public online repository (whether in a central one, like PubMed Central, or -- why not? -- in the author's own institutional repository, this time too) seems like a congenial solution to providing this essential feature of what it is that makes an open-access journal open-access! > Publishers who offer free online access on their own websites still have > a long way to go before their research articles can be considered Open > Access. I know of no publisher-provided toll-free online full-text access with "ebrary"-style constraints on downloading, grepping, printing, etc. ↵ But if there *are* any such cases (and they can successfully prevent downloading, grepping, printing, etc.) then that sort of gerrymandered access should not count as open access, and that publisher certainly doesn't count as an open-access publisher. But what is the point? BOAI-1 is institutional self-archiving, not publisher self-archiving, and it involves no ebrary-style gerrymandering; and BOAI-2 *does* guarantee unconstrained access. The fact that toll-access publishers do *not* provide toll-free access is the whole point of the BOAI movement! If they did, we could all go home now (and access it all)! > The benefits and promise of Open Access will only be realized when > this distinction is clear in the minds of authors and publishers. I think authors know perfectly well when they can and cannot access the full text of an article (including download, storage, grepping and printout) toll-free. Toll-access publishers know the difference too. The difference between unconstrained free access and gerrymandered ebrary-style access will also be fully felt and appreciated -- if and when it ever comes to pass. So far, it's nowhere in sight! Hence, at the moment, *all* the benefits of Open Access reside in free, full-text, online access of the sort that a growing number of articles already have (most of them through BOAI-1) but that most of the 2,000,000 articles published annually still lack. It will not help them get it if we seek the benefits and promise from promoting the free/open distinction, rather than from promoting free access! > Only then can the literature move from being `free' to being truly `open'. The "move" we should all be dedicating 100% of our energy and ↵ attention to is the move from toll-access to free-access. That's the move that awaits us impatiently, to at last stem our daily needless impact-loss. There is no free-access literature straining to move from free-access to open-access anywhere in sight at the moment. Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 ↵ & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html or http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org [BOAI] Re: Free Access vs. Open AccessFrom: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Matthew Cockerill wrote: >sh> "The use one makes of those full texts is to read them, >sh> print them off, quote/comment them, cite them, and use >sh> their *contents* in further research, building on them. >sh> What is "re-use"? And what is ↵ "redistribution" (when >sh> everyone on the planet with access to the web has access >sh> to the full-text of every such article)?" > > Having free access to articles on the publisher's website would certainly > offer progress compared to the current status quo. But it would not offer > anything like the benefits of true open access. Free access to the current 20,000 journals (2 million articles yearly) would be like the difference between night and day. Compared to that, the difference between "free" and "true open" access ↵ amounts to just a few degrees of luminosity. But let me agree at once that if free access were gerrymandered so all the user could do was to browse the text on-screen, without being able to download, save, grep, or print-off, then that would indeed arbitrarily limit free access's usefulness. How many (if any) of the several million free-access refereed-journal articles currently on the web, however -- whether BOAI-1, BOAI-2, or otherwise -- are gerrymandered in that way? If (as I suspect) the answer is "very few" or even ↵ "none that I know of," then this hypothetical constraint is not worth another moment's thought or energy diverted from the real task at hand, which is to turn night into day, as soon as possible. > Here are just some of the > reasons why re-use and re-distribution rights are vital to open access: > > (1) Digital permanence - it is not enough for the publisher to be the only > body which curates the full archive of published research content. To ↵ ensure > long term digital permanence of the scientific record, it is vital that > articles should be deposited with multiple archives, and redistributable > from and between those archives. It seems to me that this is conflating (arbitrarily) two completely independent matters. One is toll-free online *access* to the articles in the 20K journals that are currently only accessible via tolls. The other is the *preservation* of that toll-based corpus. Well, preservation of that toll-based corpus was always a concern, in on-paper days as in on-line days, and the concern has nothing whatsoever to do with free (or open) access! We could have a failsafe preservation system without free access, or we could have a failsafe preservation with free access; or we could have an uncertain preservation system without free access (as we do now) or an uncertain preservation system with free access (bringing the present system out into the light of day). The preservation burden has to be (and will be, and is being) faced in any case. Why on earth should that entirely orthogonal longterm task be coupled in *any way* to the immediate and urgent problem of free access today? And why should "open access" be linked with or defined ↵ in terms of the eventual solution to the preservation problem, one way or the other? (This is not an argument for indifference to preservation: it is an argument for decoupling two completely independent desiderata.) > (2) A flexible choice of tools for searching and browsing > The reason that Google exists is because the web is free for anyone to > download and index. As a result, there is competition among search ↵ engines, > and Google had the incentive to develop a better system for indexing web > pages, which has since driven other search engine companies to improve the > tools they offer. > > Compare this with the situation with scientific research. If the research > resides only on the publisher's site, you don't have a free choice of what > tools you use to search and browse it - you are stuck with what that > particular publisher provides you with. We are quite squarely in the domain of hypotheticals here. (Which publisher's free-access corpus, inaccessible to google, are we talking about?) But let us suppose that a publisher provides free access -- not gerrymandered free access, but free access that allows downloading, saving, grepping and printing: First, I will bet that such a publisher will want to maximize the visibility and impact of his contents by allowing at least the indexing metadata to be harvested, both by google, and by the OAI search engines specializing in the refereed journal literature. But even if we get doubly hypothetical here, and suppose the publisher does *not* disclose the metadata to harvesters, there is still a super-simple solution: Every author has an online CV. Their CV will contain the metadata for every one of their journal publications. (Such CVs can and will be OAI-compliant: http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi ). Add the URL for the free-access full-text on the publisher's website to your CV entry and the circle is closed. (Better still, also self-archive the full text in your own institutional OAI-compliant repository!) End of story. > This ties in with developments in Grid computing (e.g. > http://www.escience-grid.org.uk/ ). With open access, published research > would be available "on tap" via the grid, and scientists would ↵ be able to > use their preferred choice of grid tools to access the data, rather than > being stuck with the tools provided by the publisher. As stated above, the CV/OAI gambit above already trivially takes care of closing the circle. I agree, though, that for many research purposes, it is beneficial to have not just the metadata but the full-text inverted and indexed, as well as agent-harvestable and. Again, if the publisher's free-access site doesn't do this, the author's institutional site certainly can and will. In fact, authors and their institutions are the ones with the most direct interest in making sure their own research output is maximally usable in this way. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html Let us not, however, conflate article-text archiving with data-archiving. Data-archiving is important too, but it is an extra: an independent new bonus of the online era, having nothing to do with the question of toll-free access to article-texts. In the paper era, raw data were not published, just summarized in what was published. Eventually data will no doubt be incorporated into online publications in some way, but until then there is certainly no need for authors to wait! They can publish their article, as before, and, in addition, self-archive the data on which their article is based in their own OAI-compliant institutional research repository (the same repository in which the full-text of their article can and should be self-archived too, whether it appears in an open-access journal, a toll-access journal, or a toll-access journal that offers toll-free access too). Again, the online CV can close the circle, if it is not already closed of its own accord. And this way, although it is functionally independent, data-archiving can help speed the progress toward toll-free full-text access too. > (3) Datamining > > With a million or so biomedical research articles being published each ↵ year, > the sheer volume of output is an obstacle to the comprehension and ↵ synthesis > of the results reported in that research. If the XML of the articles can ↵ be > brought together in one place then the tools of datamining can be applied ↵ to > it to extract useful but non-obvious information. Agreed. See above. But before we get carried away with the potential perks, let's not forget the still absent basics: Let there be Light (toll-free full-text access), now! Leave the Solar-Energy and Club-Med projects for when we already have our daily fill of photons. > The simplest type of datamining is citation analysis > > Currently you need to pay ISI a lot of money to find out what cites what, > but with true open access, citation analysis becomes trivial. Perhaps not quite trivial. (There's still the problem of parsing, identifying and linking the citations for all those articles without the ultimate mark-up: But we're working on it: http://opcit.eprints.org/ ). But again, this is an independent perk, because you could have universal citation linking and analysis even *without* toll-free full-text access! For an article's reference list, like its indexing metadata (and its accompanying empirical data) can all be self-archived by the author (guess where?). We are in fact promoting this solution for royalty-based books, whose authors, unlike journal article-authors, are unlikely to want to make their full-texts accessible toll-free. Their metadata and reference lists, however, are another matter, and can (and will) be tucked into the institutional OAI-compliant repository too, with a new indicator of global book citation impact as the harvestable reward. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ > So, for example, if you view a PubMed record: > ↵ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui > ds=11667947&dopt=Abstract > you already get links to all the full text articles in PubMed Central ↵ which > cite that PubMed item > ↵ http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/tocrender.fcgi?action=cited&tool=pubmed&pubmedi > d=11667947 And if you look at citebase, you will see how this generalizes to the entire OAI-compliant literature: http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search > The more true open access research that is published and archived at ↵ PubMed > Central, the more useful this becomes for biomedical researchers. [Sure, > "screen-scaping" HTML from free articles displayed on publisher ↵ sites could > give some citation information, but with nothing like the ease, accuracy ↵ and > reliability that it can be obtained with the use of XML data, as at PubMed > Central]. Fine. But I'd rather have toll-free access to all 20K journals right now, rather than waiting for these XML perks -- wouldn't you? Again, toll-free access is one thing -- and extremely important, already reachable, and already overdue -- and potential perks such as citation-based navigation are another. Let there be light first; then we can worry about calibrating the photometers on our Yashicas. > Beyond citation analysis, there are many other forms of datamining that ↵ are > possible: > For more information see: > http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/datamining/ > > e.g. Research articles can be mined for details of protein interactions > http://bioinfo.mshri.on.ca/prebind/ See above. Right now, it is an indisputable fact that open-access publishing today (BOAI-2) is the solution only for that 5% of the literature (of 20K journals) that has a suitable open-access journal today. The immediate solution for all the rest is self-archiving (BOAI-1), rather than continuing to wait for more open-access journals to spawn and grow. (If, in the meanwhile, toll-access publishers also want to help hasten things along by providing free access, they are certainly welcome to do so! I still regret -- for the sake of open access -- that the BOAI http://www.soros.org/openaccess/sign2.shtml?o was not ready to count it as publisher support of open access if a toll-access journal supported author self-archiving of their articles http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable.gif: *Of course* that is publisher support for open access! By the same token, I would certainly consider it as publisher support for open access if a toll-access journal made its full-text contents publicly accessible online toll-free. Even if it was gerrymandered full-text access -- as long as they also supported self-archiving!) > And as scientific content is increasingly marked up using richer forms of > semantically meaningful XML (e.g. CML for chemical structures, MathML for > equations), the value of datamining will continue to increase. All true. And it will all prevail eventually. But we need free access *now*. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm > The BioLINK group are using BioMed Central's open access corpus as the raw > material for a datamining competition, designed to stimulate progress in ↵ the > development of tools for biological datamining. > http://www.pdg.cnb.uam.es/BioLINK/BioCreative_task2.html That is commendable and welcome. But it must not be forgotten what percentage of the annual biological journal literature that sample actually represents. We must not be held back to that small percentage because we are informed that mere free access is not good enough -- not "true open access." Such rarefied fussiness does not serve the cause ↵ of either free or open access at this point. > (4) Derivative works and compilations > Say that a scientist performs a meta-analysis on a group of published > clinical trials, and wants to make available the conclusions of that > research. Or perhaps a datamining researcher has taken a corpus of 1000 > articles breast cancer, and established some interesting conclusions. All very welcome and valuable (indeed, inevitable) developments in the online age. But I'd rather that progress toward free access for all 20K did not wait for these perks. Indeed, the sooner we have free access, the sooner the rest will come too. > In a true open access environment, each is free to post the results of ↵ their > research, *along with* the actual corpus of data which the research was > based on (effectively, the raw data for that research). > But in a non-open access environment, that raw data (i.e. the research > articles) cannot be redistributed, which makes it far more difficult than ↵ it > needs to be for other scientists to reproduce, critique and follow up the > work. I am afraid I have to disagree. As already noted above, authors are as free to self-archive (in their institutional repositories) the empirical data underlying their toll-access publications as they are to do so with the data underlying their open-access publications. Data-archiving is another thing for which there is no point sitting around awaiting the era of universal open-access publishing. Data-archiving will encourage article self-archiving, and both will hasten the era of universal open-access. > Similarly, a scientist may wish to make a point by assembling a collection > of certain articles or article fragments (perhaps they wish to assemble a > comparison of the methods used for a certain technique). > In an open access world, as long as they cite the sources, they are > completely free to create and redistribute that compilation. Such a > selective compilation may in itself be extremely useful contribution to > science. I can't follow this at all. A compilation is a list of articles, whether online or on-paper, whether toll-access of open-access. If the full-texts of the texts are *free* access, all the compilation need list is their URLs. (Ditto for article "fragments": try section number, paragraph number, or even [yech!] PDF page number.) > (5) Print redistribution rights - the National Health Service, for ↵ example, > should be able to redistribute thousands of printed copies of an important > research article (which it may have funded) to its doctors if it wishes to > do so. It should not have to pay a hefty copyright fee for the privilege. I have no views on this, but it has nothing to do with open access, which even in the strict BOAI definition refers to online access, not to multiple printing and redistribution rights. Besides, this is all becoming moot in the online era: Why distribute print copies instead of URLs, if the texts are publicly accessible online toll-free? (I think it is a big mistake, and clouds the issue, to try to link online toll-free access arguments with paper-printing rights. Don't forget that those worthy paper-based arguments would have been just as worthy in the paper era. So surely they are *not* what has changed in the online era.) > Certainly, print redistribution will likely become less significant in the > future, but there is no logical reason that the scientific community ↵ should > not be free to exchange and distribute the research that it has created in > print form, as well as online. The case for multiple printing rights is *much* weaker than the case for toll-free online access. Please let us not needlessly weaken the case for free access by handicapping it with such needless extra burdens. Free access will erode the need to print, even as it erodes publisher opposition to printing. But now, all fussing about print "redistribution" rights does is provoke needless opposition, to no good purpose. Keep it light, till everyone sees the light. Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 ↵ & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html or http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org [BOAI] kein BetreffFrom: Rolf.Neth AT t-online.de (neth)
Anyone in the world can use the internet file
www.modern-trends-in-human-leukemia.com
If we get a postadress we can send a booklet with the html adresses for free
open access and postcards with the www.internet-portal-wilsede.com for
information.
Springer Verlag give us the copyright of our published 9 books "Modern ↵
Trends in
Human Leukemia" so the publications are free for everyone.
www.science-connections.com is under construction for a new internet file.
rolf.neth
[BOAI] Re: Free Access vs. Open AccessFrom: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On the Deep Disanalogy
Between Text and Software and
Between Text and Data
Insofar as Free/Open Access is Concerned
Stevan Harnad
It would be a *great* conceptual and strategic mistake for the movement
dedicated to open access to peer-reviewed research (BOAI)
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ to conflate its sense of "free"
vs. open" with the sense of "free vs. open" as it is used in the
free/open-source software movements. The two senses are not at all the
same, and importing the software-movements' distinction just adds to
the still widespread confusion and misunderstanding that there is in
the research community about toll-free access.
I will try to state it in the simplest and most direct terms possible:
Software is code that you use to *do* things. It may not be enough to
let you use the code for free to do things, because one of the things you
may want to do is to modify the code so it will do *other* things. Hence
you may need not only free use of the code, but the code itself has to
be open, so you can see and modify it.
There is simply *no counterpart* to this in peer-reviewed research
article use. None. Researchers, in using one another's articles, are
using and re-using the *content* (what the articles are reporting), and
not the *code* (i.e., the actually words in the text). Yes, they read the
text. Yes (within limits) they may quote it. Yes, it is helpful to be able
to navigate the code by character-string and boolean searching. But what
researchers are fundamentally *not* doing in writing their own articles
(which build on the articles they have read) is anything faintly analogous
to modifying the code for the original article!
I hope that that is now transparent, having been pointed out and written
in longhand like this. So if it is obvious that what researchers do with
the articles they read is not to modify the text in order to generate a
new text, as programmers may modify a program to generate a new program,
where did this open/free source/access conflation come from?
There is a second conflation inherent in it, namely, a conflation between
research publishing (i.e., peer-reviewed journal articles) and public
data-archiving (scientific and scholarly databases consisting of the
raw and processed data on which the research reports are based).
Digital data archiving (e.g., the various genome databases, astrophysical
databases, etc.) is relatively new, and it is a powerful *supplement*
to peer-reviewed article publishing. In general, the data are not *in*
the published article, they are *associated with* it. In paper days, there
was not the page-allotment or the money to publish all the data. And even
in digital days, there is no standardized practice yet of making the raw
data as public as the research findings themselves; but there is definite
movement in that direction, because of its obvious power and utility.
The point, however, is this: As of today, articles and data are not
the same thing. The 2,000,000 new articles appearing every year in the
planet's 20,000 peer-reviewed journals (the full-text literature that
-- as we cannot keep reminding ourselves often enough, apparently --
the open/free access movement is dedicated to freeing from access-tolls)
consists of articles only, *not* the research data on which the articles
are based.
Hence, today, the access problem concerns toll-access to the article
full-texts of 2,000,000 articles published yearly, not access to the
data on which they are based (most of which are not yet archived online,
let alone published; and, when they *are* archived online, they are often
already publicly accessible toll-free!). No doubt research practices will
evolve toward making all data accessible to would-be users, along with the
articles reporting the research findings. This is quite natural, and in
line with researchers' desire to maximize the use and hence the impact
of their research. What may happen is that journals will eventually include
some or all the underlying data as part of the peer-reviewed publication
itself (there may even be "peer-reviewed data"), but in an online ↵
digital
supplement only, rather than in the paper edition.
(What is *dead-certain* is that, as this happens, authors will not
be idiotic enough to sign over copyright to their research data to their
publishers, the same way they have been signing over copyright to the
texts of their research reports! So let's not even waste time on that
implausible hypothetical contingency. The research community may be slow
off the mark in reaching for the free-access that is already within its
grasp, but they have not altogether taken leave of their senses!)
But that bridge (digital data supplements), if it ever comes, can be
crossed if/when we get to it. Right now, when we are talking about
the peer-reviewed literature to which we are trying to free access we
are talking about *articles* and not about *data*. Hence, exactly as
in the conflation of text with software in the incorrect and misleading
open/free source analogy, the conflation of open/free full-text access to
the refereed literature with hypothetical questions about data-access
and data re-use and re-analysis capability is simply incorrect and
misleading. The two are different, and it is only the first that is at
issue today.
Open/free access -- in this flurry of definitional fussiness and fancy
one no longer knows which word to use! -- to the refereed research
literature is already vastly overdue, even though it has been 100%
within our practical reach for several years now.
http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/85/index.html
Research usage and impact and productivity are still being needlessly
lost daily, in untold quantities, because of access-denial by
toll-barriers. Why on earth do we keep wasting our time, energy
and attention on minor diversions and irrelevancies, while keeping
the solution to the real, pressing problem on hold, as we ponder the
ramifications of incoherent analogies with software and with
data-archiving, when there is a real job to be done: freeing (sic)
full-text access to the planet's yearly 2,000,000 peer-reviewed research
articles, now!
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html
I will now quote/comment this latest variant of that Protean microbe
that keeps on causing us Zeno's Paralysis on the road to the optimal
and inevitable. In the past, the source of this persistent virus
and its ever-mutating variants had been the opponents of free
access (toll-access publishers), as well as its over-timorous
potential beneficiaries (researchers, librarians, administrators).
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#8 But now the
paralysis-inducing bug is also originating from the ranks of free-access
activists, who risk balkanizing the free-access movement by driving a
conceptual wedge between "free" and "open," despite the ↵
fact that nothing
substantive is to be gained, and only more time to be lost thereby. I
will pass to quote/comment mode to illustrate this:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Matthew Cockerill wrote:
> The open source software community [uses] the shorthand 'free, as in beer'
The open/free distinction in software is based on the modifiability of the
code. This is irrelevant to refereed-article full-text. (And the beer
analogy was silly and uninformative in both cases! Lots of laughs, but
little light cast.)
> Sure, if you are given some limited access to something and that access is
> 'free, as in beer', that can be very useful.
> In the world of software, say, that would apply to Windows Media Player,
> which you can download for free from the Microsoft website (even though ↵
the
> software itself is highly proprietary, and Microsoft would not take kindly
> to you reverse-engineering it or distributing a modified version).
This is all irrelevant to article-access, except that toll-access
publishers can, like every other product- or service-provider, use partial
or temporary access as a marketing "hook." Temporary access is not ↵
free
access (or rather it is free access only while it is free). And partial
access is free only for whatever it is access to, not for what it is
not access to. (We're all "non-smokers" while we are asleep...)
But none of this provides any basis at all for the analogy with
proprietary code, as in software, nor with any need for code
modifiability, whatsoever.
> But free/open source software is more than 'free as in beer', it is 'free ↵
as
> in speech', and this offers hugely significant extra freedoms (which is ↵
why
> open source software has had such a revolutionary effect on the software
> industry).
This free beer/speech analogy was already dubious in the software case
(not all programmers wish to give away their code [the freedom to produce
non-give-away products/services is a freedom too!], either for use or
for modification, or both; and my speech, whether spoken or written,
is spoken/written for you to hear, not for you to claim to have been
your own words, whether in unaltered or altered form; and we are free
to say or write what we like, as long as it is indeed our own, etc. etc.).
But never mind. We will not try to repair another domain's incoherent
analogy here; but, please, let us not import it where it just sows still
more confusion in an already confused terrain: Refereed-research-article
authors (unlike the authors of most other forms of "written speech")
are not interested in earning access-royalties from the sale or use of
their words. They just want their words *used,* as much as possible. (That's
"research impact.") But to use their words is not to modify their ↵
*form*
(the code) and then re-issue them, perhaps as the modifier's own. To use
their words is to use their *content*, by incorporating that content
into the user's own content, in his *own* words, with proper source
attribution, so as to produce another text, another "written speech."
It would be nice if all programmers were willing and motivated to make
all their code free, not just for use, but for modification too. It would
also be nice if the writers of all words were willing and motivated to
make their words free, not just for use, but for modification too. But
alas humans and their egos are monadic, not distributed and diffuse,
and their motivation is usually local, and quid pro quo. So there will
always be programmers who program only if it pays, and they may want the
credit as well as the first-dibs at modification and development. Nolo
contendere there.
But the same is true of writers. Some will always want to be paid for
access to their words, and virtually all will want to keep their own
words as their own.
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001700/index.html
Refereed-article writers, however, don't want to be paid for access to
their words, because access-tolls reduce the usage of their work, which
is what they really want to maximize (because that research impact is
what brings them their rewards, both financial and
scholarly/scientific). Because the words are in natural language, there
is no question of researchers concealing their code (of they choose to
publish at all). But what they want you freely using is its *content*
(with proper attribution). There is no question of modifying its form. As
software does not have this form/content duality, the analogy simply
does not apply; it is incoherent.
> The Free Software Foundation defines these freedoms as:
> * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
Inapplicable to text: "Running the program" is accessing the text.
> * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
> (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Irrelevant to text. You may study and use the content of my (giveway,
refereed-article) text (with attribution) in any way you like, and you
may quote it (with attribution). That's all. And there all analogy
between text and software ends.
There are also many new software-based uses (indexing, search,
navigation, digitometric analyses) that one can make of online text,
which refereed-article authors also welcome, but the big hurdle is free
full-text access, and not these perks, which will come with the territory.
But no reprocessing of *my* text code in order to turn it into *your*
text code (other than via its content, as processed by your brain)!
(And remember that data, and data-processing, are not part of
refereed-article text.)
> * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor ↵
(freedom
> 2).
Moot for text, when all you need redistribute is the URL of its toll-free
full-text online.
> * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the
> public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the
> source code is a precondition for this.
> (see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html )
Irrelevant to refereed-article text. You may improve on the content, in
text of your own, with proper attribution. (And again, data re-analysis
is an orthogonal matter.)
> This philosophy fits exceptionally well with the needs of the scientific
> community to share and build on each others research, which is why very ↵
many
> academic software development projects are developed using an open source
> model.
Scientific *software*. But we were talking about scientific-article
*text*, and this was supposed to be an analogy! There is no counterpart
to collective software development at the article-code level. It is only
content that the scientific community develops collectively, and even
that, while tracking attribution through citation.
Nor did the collective, cumulative use of scientific content require any
cues from the software community! Open-source *content* has been the
rule with scholarship for centuries: That's why scholars *publish*. The
new question is only about access to their content (via their text)
online. Please let's not forget or obscure that fundamental new question
in this welter of free-associative digital analogies of doubtful
relevance and coherence.
> BioMed Central's policy of Open Access is based on giving the scientific
> community a similarly broad freedom to make use of the research articles
> that we publish.
The scientific community already has the freedom to make use of
published articles. What it lacks is toll-free access to their texts!
> This includes giving access to the structured form of the articles,
We're back to XML mark-up again: a perk, a welcome perk, but we first,
and far more urgently, need the basics, namely, toll-free access to the
full-text. Please let us focus on that, rather than getting side-tracked
onto perks, especially those that make it seem as if free access were
somehow not enough, somehow not "truly open." We don't have free ↵
access
today. We don't need advice on the short-comings of free access; we need
help in getting free access, as soon as possible.
> and giving the right to redistribute and create derivative works
> from the articles.
I've already replied to this in an earlier posting: When the full-text
is online and toll-free, the only relevant mode of "redistribution" ↵
is
to distribute the URL. Ditto for "derivative works." Quotes, as ↵
always,
require attribution. And text without attribution may be neither ↵
"re-used"
nor modified. So what is really the point here?
> This isn't just a philosophical issue - it has practical implications:
>
> e.g. in the August 14 issue of Nature (Vol 424 p727), Donat Agosti, from ↵
the
> American Museum of Natural History, New York, laments the fact that the
> www.antbase.org database of ant taxonomy is missing much critical
> information because a large fraction of all descriptions of new ant ↵
species
> are covered by publisher copyright.
I couldn't follow this. If the database is toll-free, the database is
toll-free. If making the database useful requires toll-free access to
the full-text of refereed-articles, then the full-text of
refereed-articles needs to be made toll-free! We knew that already!
What is the point of all these further free-associations and free-floating
analogies? We are running in circles instead of breaking out of the
circle.
> In a true Open Access environment, not only could Antbase link to the
> articles on the publishers web site, but it could also make use the images
> and the text within those published descriptions to compile a universal ↵
and
> authoritative catalog of Ant taxonomy.
Translation: We need free access not only to the database, but to the
full-text. This can be clearly seen without conflating the two. (Please
jettison this "true open access" locution, or save it for when we ↵
have
universal false-but-toll-free full-text access, and we have nothing
more urgent left to do than to optimize it further. My guess is that
the rest will already have come with the territory of its own accord. But
please, let's go for the territory, before the "truth" -- see Keats
quote at end).
> Finally, to respond to Sally's point questioning the benefits of
> deposition in a standard repository:
I re-read Sally Morris's point, and I now see that (in agreeing on #5)
I misconstrued it as as addressing only the trivial differences between
the types of "databases" -- "archives," ↵
"repositories": how we unfailingly
prefer to fuss with and multiply terminological trivia instead of
staying focussed on matter of substance! -- in which a full-text might
be deposited (e.g., Eprints vs Dspace, or central vs. institutional). I
now realize that Sally was refereeing there to BioMedCentral's (BMC's)
[requirement? recommendation?] that BMC authors archive their BMC
full-texts in an open-access database such as PubMed Central. Hence what
my reply to Sally should have been was this:
>sh> 5) Whether the item and/or its metadata are deposited in certain
>sh> types of databases (this last seems to me supremely irrelevant)
I agree it's irrelevant, if by "certain
type" you mean, say, Eprints vs. Dspace.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2670.html
But it's certainly not irrelevant whether the item (full-text)
is deposited in *some* type of database *at all*, for if it
is not deposited in a free-access database of *some* type,
it is not free access!
Whether that database type is institutional and distributed,
disciplinary and central, or the toll-free access database of an
open-access or a toll-access publisher is an implementational
and strategic matter. And whether or not that database is
OAI-compliant is a matter of functionality and efficiency
(OAI-compliant databases greatly preferred!).
> Although theoretically it might not matter where something is available, ↵
or
> in what format, it should be clear that in practical terms these are
> absolutely vital issues.
Absolutely vital *relative to what*? In practical terms, we do not
have free full-text online access to most of the refereed literature
(2,000,000 annual articles, in 20,000 refereed journals) today. What
is absolutely vital is getting that free access, now, and putting an
end at last to the needless daily impact-loss that continues until that
happens. Whether that free access is via this type of archive or that,
and has or lacks these perks or those, is certainly not the absolutely
vital issue today. On the contrary, foregrounding such minor details
when we still lack the basics, and thereby raising the goal post for
what we should all be aiming for, slows and diverts rather than speeds
progress.
Free access, now! Never mind the rest until we have those long-overdue
basics in hand, at last!
> So for example, theoretically, every DNA sequencing
> lab could put up its own web page and make available the sequences they
> themselves have obtained, using their own choice of format. The scientific
> community would thereby have free access to all those DNA sequences.
Correct. And this has absolutely *nothing* to do with the free-access
movement, which is about toll-free access to the 2M articles in the 20K
toll-access journals, not about data-archiving, which is a parallel but
independent development that proceeds apace, and does not need
free-access's (or publishers') permission! (Data-archiving, on the
other hand, might help accelerate article-archiving!)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm
> But in
> fact, the deposition of all DNA sequences in a standard format with ↵
Genbank
> has a truly enormous benefit in practical terms, and has served as a ↵
crucial
> foundation for the development of tools to mine the genome. PubMed ↵
Central's
> role as a repository for biomedical research articles is very much
> analogous to Genbank's role as a repository for DNA sequence data.
An archive is an archive. There is an analogy (as well as a
complementarity) between data-archives and article-archives, but the
big difference is that both data archiving and data-archives are (1)
new, and (2) do not have a prior tradition and current status quo of
being non-free, whereas articles are (1) old, and (2) do have a prior
tradition and current status quo of being non-free. Publishers' relatively
new toll-based online article-archives are also non-free. So the relevant point
about article archiving is that article-archives should be free.
"that is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know"
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 ↵
& 03):
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html
or
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org
[BOAI] Open Access, Content, Publishing, LearningFrom: Peter Murray <peter.j.murray AT btinternet.com> The following collection of links etc. may be of use to some http://webtools.cityu.edu.hk/news/newslett/openaccess.htm - although some may feel that it further confuses/conflates the discussions around open access 'versus' open source?? Regards, Peter Murray [BOAI] NCSC2004, Lund, SwedenFrom: "Rabow Ingegerd" <Ingegerd.Rabow AT LUBPOST.LUB.LU.SE> Welcome to NCSC2004 - the Second Nordic Conference on Scholarly Communication. ↵ Lund, Sweden, April 26-28, 2004. . http://www.lub.lu.se/ncsc2004/ Following up the success of the First Nordic Conference on Scholarly ↵ Communication, Lund University Libraries are proud to announce the Second ↵ Nordic Conference. The theme of the 2004 conference is "Towards a new ↵ publishing environment". Since the last conference, held in October 2002, many interesting developments ↵ have occurred with direct consequences for publishers, researchers and ↵ libraries. What implications will a new model for scholarly communication have ↵ for publishers and for funding authorities? How will the mechanisms for quality ↵ control and peer review work in a new publishing environment, and how will the ↵ issue of intellectual property rights be managed? In order to discuss, present and analyze the problems and challenges that arise ↵ within scholarly communication Lund University Libraries invite scholars, ↵ publishers, vendors, editors, librarians and other interested parties to the ↵ Second Nordic Conference on Scholarly Communication 26 - 28 April 2004. The ↵ conference will take place every second year and aims to be an important ↵ contribution to the discussion and to the development within the Nordic ↵ countries. For further information please contact Henrik Åslund at Lund University Libraries Head Office Email: Henrik.Aslund AT lub.lu.se Phone: +46 46 222 93 33 More detailed information about the conference will be announced continuously ↵ at http://www.lub.lu.se/ncsc2004/ [BOAI] PubMed and self-archivingFrom: "David Prosser" <david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk>
As you know, Medline is by far and away the most important abstracting and indexing service in the life sciences and most researchers access Medline through PubMed. If you find a paper through PubMed and that paper is available electronically you get a link through to the publisher's site with the full-text (that you can follow only if you have access rights). For example, see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&li st_uids=11857108&dopt=Abstract> &db=PubMed&list_uids=11857108&dopt=Abstract It struck me that it would encourage life sciences authors to self-archive if there was also a link from the PubMed record to the self-archived version of the paper. It should be possible to use the 'link out' feature to add the authors' version to the record (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/linkout/). It might even be possible to provide an icon on the main record page next to the link to the publisher's version. I wondered if any repositories are already offering this service to authors - i.e., if an author deposits their version in the local repository the repository will make the PubMed link? This could be a powerful tool for encouraging the life scientist as they know that their version will be accessed by anybody who does not have access to the publisher's version. (Apologies for cross-posting.) David David C Prosser PhD Director SPARC Europe E-mail: david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 1865 284 451 Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888 http://www.sparceurope.org <http://www.sparceurope.org/> [BOAI] ACRL Issues Scholarly Communications PrinciplesFrom: Ray English <ray.english AT oberlin.edu> August 28, 2003 FOR IMMEDIATE DISTRIBUTION ACRL Issues Scholarly Communications Principles and Strategies The Association of College and Research Libraries has issued its "Principles and Strategies for the Reform of Scholarly ↵ Communication." The document, which was prepared by the ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee and approved by the ACRL Board at the ALA annual conference in Toronto, is the foundation statement for the ACRL scholarly communications initiative. The document contains a brief definition of the existing system of scholarly communication, an overview of the scholarly communication crisis, and an enumeration of general principles and specific strategies that ACRL supports in working for reform of the system of scholarly communication. The document is accessible online at: http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ACRL/Publications/White_Papers_an d_Reports/Principles_and_Strategies_for_the_Reform_of_Scholarly_Communicati on.htm It will also be published in the September issue of College and Research Library News. Comments and questions may be addressed to Ray English, Chair of the ACRL Scholarly Communications Committee (ray.english AT oberlin.edu) or Sue Martin, ACRL Visiting Program Officer for Scholarly Communication (martin AT skmassociates.net). Re: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archivingFrom: "hbosc AT tours.inra.fr" <hbosc AT tours.inra.fr>
David, Your idea of linking repositories with PubMed is very interesting. We have started an Open Archive in our lab. The name of our repository is "PhysiologieAnimale" and the few articles (10) that are deposited in ↵ it, could be retreived by Pubmed. So, I can try to see if it is easy to activate the PubMed linkout. I'll give you the result of the experience. Helene >It struck me that it would encourage life sciences authors to self-archive >if there was also a link from the PubMed record to the self-archived >version of the paper. It should be possible to use the link out feature >to add the authors version to the record (see ><http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/linkout/>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en >trez/linkout/). It might even be possible to provide an icon on the main >record page next to the link to the publisher s version. > > > >I wondered if any repositories are already offering this service to >authors i.e., if an author deposits their version in the local repository >the repository will make the PubMed link? This could be a powerful tool >for encouraging the life scientist as they know that their version will be >accessed by anybody who does not have access to the publisher s version. > > > >(Apologies for cross-posting.) > > > >David > > > >David C Prosser PhD > >Director > >SPARC Europe > > > >E-mail: <mailto:david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk>david.prosser AT ↵ bodley.ox.ac.uk > >Tel: +44 (0) 1865 284 451 > >Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888 > ><http://www.sparceurope.org/>http://www.sparceurope.org > > Helene Bosc Bibliothecaire 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: hbosc AT tours.inra.fr RE: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archivingFrom: "D. K. Sahu" <dksahu AT vsnl.com>
Recently I had suggested PubMed development team to include similar links and the answer was encouraging. "We also plan to attract more links to those authors' websites with supplementary data for their articles. If you know of any authors who may be interested, please let us know." Kathy Kwan, LinkOut team, NCBI/NLM One can contact LinkOut team at <mailto:linkout AT ↵ mailgw.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> linkout AT mailgw.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov DK Sahu, MD Executive Editor, Indian Journal of Medical Sciences Managing Editor, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine --Original Message----- From: owner-boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:owner-boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 28 August 2003 17:11 To: boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk Subject: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving As you know, Medline is by far and away the most important abstracting and indexing service in the life sciences and most researchers access Medline through PubMed. If you find a paper through PubMed and that paper is available electronically you get a link through to the publisher's site with the full-text (that you can follow only if you have access rights). For example, see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_u ids=11857108&dopt=Abstract> ↵ &db=PubMed&list_uids=11857108&dopt=Abstract It struck me that it would encourage life sciences authors to self-archive if there was also a link from the PubMed record to the self-archived version of the paper. It should be possible to use the 'link out' feature to add the authors' version to the record (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/linkout/). It might even be possible to provide an icon on the main record page next to the link to the publisher's version. I wondered if any repositories are already offering this service to authors - i.e., if an author deposits their version in the local repository the repository will make the PubMed link? This could be a powerful tool for encouraging the life scientist as they know that their version will be accessed by anybody who does not have access to the publisher's version. (Apologies for cross-posting.) David David C Prosser PhD Director SPARC Europe E-mail: david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 1865 284 451 Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888 http://www.sparceurope.org <http://www.sparceurope.org/> RE: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archivingFrom: "D. K. Sahu" <dksahu AT vsnl.com>
To add to my previous mail I would also like to inform the forum readers about utilising the LinkOut for linking to more than one resource. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine is available from its website www.jpgmonline.com <http://www.jpgmonline.com/> as well as from Bioline International (www.bioline.org.br/jp). We have provided the links from PubMed to both these resources. For articles which are available on both these sites, the link to JPGM's site appears in the abstract page (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_u ids=11298473&dopt=Abstract> ↵ &db=PubMed&list_uids=11298473&dopt=Abstract) and to Bioline's site in LinkOut page (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=PubMed> &DB=PubMed). Similar links can be provided to other self-archiving resources. It may be appropriate here to note that libraries and institutions (which can apply to self-archiving sites) can also participate in LinkOut (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_u ids=11832636&dopt=ExternalLink&ExternalLink=libs> &db=PubMed&list_uids=11832636&dopt=ExternalLink&ExternalLink=libs) DK Sahu, MD Executive Editor, Indian Journal of Medical Sciences Managing Editor, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine -----Original Message----- From: owner-boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:owner-boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 28 August 2003 17:11 To: boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk Subject: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving As you know, Medline is by far and away the most important abstracting and indexing service in the life sciences and most researchers access Medline through PubMed. If you find a paper through PubMed and that paper is available electronically you get a link through to the publisher's site with the full-text (that you can follow only if you have access rights). For example, see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_u ids=11857108&dopt=Abstract> ↵ &db=PubMed&list_uids=11857108&dopt=Abstract It struck me that it would encourage life sciences authors to self-archive if there was also a link from the PubMed record to the self-archived version of the paper. It should be possible to use the 'link out' feature to add the authors' version to the record (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/linkout/). It might even be possible to provide an icon on the main record page next to the link to the publisher's version. I wondered if any repositories are already offering this service to authors - i.e., if an author deposits their version in the local repository the repository will make the PubMed link? This could be a powerful tool for encouraging the life scientist as they know that their version will be accessed by anybody who does not have access to the publisher's version. (Apologies for cross-posting.) David David C Prosser PhD Director SPARC Europe E-mail: david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 1865 284 451 Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888 http://www.sparceurope.org <http://www.sparceurope.org/> Re: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archivingFrom: "Linda Q. Thede" <lqthede AT apk.net>
Pubmed Central has a search tool that searches ONLY those articles which are open access. See http://www3.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pmc -- Linda Q. Thede 435-4 Chandler Drive Aurora, OH 44202 lqthede AT apk.net 330-562-3281 [BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
|
E-mail: 