Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

RE: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles

From: "Gerritsma, Wouter" <Wouter.Gerritsma AT wur.nl>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:12:13 +0200


Threading: Re: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Request for journal/article/field statistics from Ulrichs and ISI from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

Dear Stevan,

We ought to get the numbers straight. You used to quote 20,000 peer reviewed 
journals, based on Ulrich. Using Ulrichsweb I made a quick check (this 
morning), and only found 18,846 refereed active academic/scholarly serials. I 
can't see why you increased your quote on the number of serials to 24,000 
today, the FAQ your refered to comes with other figures altogether: 

Q  What does the "Ulrich's Core" consist of?  
A   
The "Ulrich's Core" consists of approximately 50,000 active titles 
that represent academic and scholarly journals, refereed serials, titles 
reviewed in Katz's Magazines for Libraries, and major consumer and trade 
publications.  http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/analysis/

It is hard to believe that the major consumer and trade publications consist of 
more than half of "Ulrich's core"

So how many peer reviewed scholarly publication's are out there?

Is it an important question we have to ask ourselves anyway? I think it is good 
to have a yardstick on which we can measure the progress of adopting the open 
access model.  

Your sincerely

Wouter Gerritsma

-----------------------------------------
Wouter Gerritsma
Information Specialist Plant Library 
Wageningen UR Library 

e-mail: wouter.gerritsma AT wur.nl
-----------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 22:34
To: BOAI Forum
Subject: Re: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact
of research articles


On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Etienne Joly wrote:

> http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/forum/?letter=20030722ej

> For the benefit of the scientific community, completely Open Access
> to all primary scientific articles is clearly the only way to go....
> I believe... that it would be possible to set up a system 
> whereby papers would get evaluated for publication solely on their 
> scientific soundness, whilst the best papers would still get recognised 
> and their authors rewarded for making important contributions. For 
> example I would envisage that the amount charged for the publication of 
> their manuscript would be inversely related to the scientific impact of 
> that paper. The ground basis of this proposal is that papers would be 
> rated retroactively, and this rating would provide the authors with a 
> quotable evaluation of their publications that could be used on their 
> CVs or their grant applications.

What the peer-reviewed research literature needs (urgently) today is
to become freely accessible to all of its potential users worldwide,
online, today. This does not call for any tampering with peer review on
the basis of untested (and often very unrealistic) speculations. It only
calls for free online access to the peer-reviewed research literature.

The true cost of *implementing* peer review (referees referee for free),
whatever that cost turns out to be, can and will be paid for in advance,
by the researcher's institution or research-funder, *if and when that
becomes necessary.* At the moment, it is necessary only for
at most five percent (5%) -- http://www.doaj.org/ -- of the 24,000 
peer-reviewed
journals (3-4 million annual articles) that exist today:
http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/analysis/ These 24,000 journals and
their 3-4 million annual articles are what we are talking about freeing
online access *to* here. http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/analysis/

For the remaining ninety-five percent (95%) of those 24,000 journals
and 3-4 million annual articles, all that is needed in order to make
them freely accessible online today is for their authors to continue to
publish them in the journals of their choice -- as well as to self-archive
them in their own institutional eprint archives.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1

No need to implement any speculative changes whatosever in either peer
review or its funding.

    The Invisible Hand of Peer Review.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html

    Peer Review Reform Hypothesis-Testing
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0479.html

    A Note of Caution About "Reforming the System"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1169.html

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 




Re: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 23:03:39 -0500


Threading: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles from atn AT cict.fr
      • This Message

  Etienne Joly writes

> But to ensure the quality of the papers published, it is hard to
> conceive that scientific publishing could be carried out by others
> than money-earning professionals. The only viable solution is
> therefore for the publishing charges to be levied on the authors.

  I beg to differ. The cost of academic publishing has  dropped so far
  that it is easy to conceive individuals and departments
  running journals to raise their web exposure and academic reputation.
  The costs can be absorbed by the individual and the institutions.
  There are already many examples for this. It will be a growing
  trend I hope.


  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel                      mailto:krichel AT openlib.org
  from Moscow, Russia            http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                             RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel

 


Re: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:34:09 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles from atn AT cict.fr
      • This Message
             RE: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles from Wouter.Gerritsma AT wur.nl

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Etienne Joly wrote:

> http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/forum/?letter=20030722ej

> For the benefit of the scientific community, completely Open Access
> to all primary scientific articles is clearly the only way to go....
> I believe... that it would be possible to set up a system 
> whereby papers would get evaluated for publication solely on their 
> scientific soundness, whilst the best papers would still get recognised 
> and their authors rewarded for making important contributions. For 
> example I would envisage that the amount charged for the publication of 
> their manuscript would be inversely related to the scientific impact of 
> that paper. The ground basis of this proposal is that papers would be 
> rated retroactively, and this rating would provide the authors with a 
> quotable evaluation of their publications that could be used on their 
> CVs or their grant applications.

What the peer-reviewed research literature needs (urgently) today is
to become freely accessible to all of its potential users worldwide,
online, today. This does not call for any tampering with peer review on
the basis of untested (and often very unrealistic) speculations. It only
calls for free online access to the peer-reviewed research literature.

The true cost of *implementing* peer review (referees referee for free),
whatever that cost turns out to be, can and will be paid for in advance,
by the researcher's institution or research-funder, *if and when that
becomes necessary.* At the moment, it is necessary only for
at most five percent (5%) -- http://www.doaj.org/ -- of the 24,000 
peer-reviewed
journals (3-4 million annual articles) that exist today:
http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/analysis/ These 24,000 journals and
their 3-4 million annual articles are what we are talking about freeing
online access *to* here. http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/analysis/

For the remaining ninety-five percent (95%) of those 24,000 journals
and 3-4 million annual articles, all that is needed in order to make
them freely accessible online today is for their authors to continue to
publish them in the journals of their choice -- as well as to self-archive
them in their own institutional eprint archives.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1

No need to implement any speculative changes whatosever in either peer
review or its funding.

    The Invisible Hand of Peer Review.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html

    Peer Review Reform Hypothesis-Testing
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0479.html

    A Note of Caution About "Reforming the System"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1169.html

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] Accessing ACRL Scholarly Communication principles

From: martin AT skmassociates.net
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:05:13 -0700 (PDT)


Please excuse any duplication!

Subscribers to these listservs have received publicity about the
Scholarly Communication Principles recently adopted by the Association
of College and Research Libraries.  Some may be having trouble
accessing the document because of the long URL given in the initial
posting.

There is another way to access the document.  Go to www.ala.org/acrl,
which is of course ACRL's home page.  The announcement of the
principles document is on the home page, with a link directly to the
document.

If you continue to have trouble accessing the document, please let me
know.

Sue Martin
Visiting Program Officer for Scholarly Communication
Association of College and Research Libraries


[BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles

From: Etienne Joly <atn AT cict.fr>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 16:11:55 +0200


Threading:      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             Re: [BOAI] A proposal for evaluating and rewarding the impact of research articles from krichel AT openlib.org


--Apple-Mail-16-539253727
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed


As a strong suporter of the evolution of scientific publishing towards=20=

completely open access to all primary papers, I have spent quite some=20
time trying to think of a system that would be financially viable. For=20=

those of you who are interested, the result of these thoughts is=20
summarized below, and a more complete document can be found on the=20
"Open Access Now" web server ( =20
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/  )


For the benefit of the scientific community, completely Open Access to=20=

all primary scientific articles is clearly the only way to go. But to=20
ensure the quality of the papers published, it is hard to conceive that=20=

scientific publishing could be carried out by others than money-earning=20=

professionals. The only viable solution is therefore for the publishing=20=

charges to be levied on the authors. This is in fact very much the=20
route followed by the pioneering enterprise launched as Bio Med=20
Central. On the whole, however, authors have very understandably been=20
reluctant to publish their first rate papers in such journals because=20
of negative perceptions and upfront charges for publication.

I believe, however, that it would be possible to set up a system=20
whereby papers would get evaluated for publication solely on their=20
scientific soundness, whilst the best papers would still get recognised=20=

and their authors rewarded for making important contributions. For=20
example I would envisage that the amount charged for the publication of=20=

their manuscript would be inversely related to the scientific impact of=20=

that paper. The ground basis of this proposal is that papers would be=20
rated retroactively, and this rating would provide the authors with a=20
quotable evaluation of their publications that could be used on their=20
CVs or their grant applications.

In this slightly idealistic scheme, the scientists' main concern would=20=

be to produce the best science they can, and to deliver it in the best=20=

and most complete format to fellow scientists, and not to seduce=20
editors and/or referees. Since acceptability would be based on=20
soundness, not on the evaluation of the interest of the results=20
described, the referee's role would be to help produce the best=20
possible articles. And because scientists would be the payers,=20
scientific publishers would have to compete with one another by=20
providing the best possible service at the best prices to the=20
scientific community.

If you want to read more on how I perceive such a system could work,=20
you can find out on the following link:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/forum/?letter=3D20030722ej


Cheerio

Etienne Joly


******************************************************
Etienne Joly                            |||||||
(pronounce A.T.N.)                       o   o
CPTP, U563 INSERM,                         |
B=E2timent CNRS,                            \./
CHU Purpan,31300 Toulouse
France
E-mail: atn <atn AT cict.fr>
Phone:(33) 561 15 84 04
Mobile :(33) 662 24 59 91
FAX:  (33) 561 49 90 36             life is a beach
******************************************************=

--Apple-Mail-16-539253727
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1

<fontfamily><param>Verdana</param><color><param>0000,0000,0000</param>

As a strong suporter of the evolution of scientific publishing towards
completely open access to all primary papers, I have spent quite some
time trying to think of a system that would be financially viable. For
those of you who are interested, the result of these thoughts is
summarized below, and a more complete document can be found on the
"Open Access Now" web server (=20
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/  )</color>



For the benefit of the scientific community, completely Open Access to
all primary scientific articles is clearly the only way to go. But to
ensure the quality of the papers published, it is hard to conceive
that scientific publishing could be carried out by others than
money-earning professionals. The only viable solution is therefore for
the publishing charges to be levied on the authors. This is in fact
very much the route followed by the pioneering enterprise launched as
Bio Med Central. On the whole, however, authors have very
understandably been reluctant to publish their first rate papers in
such journals because of negative perceptions and upfront charges for
publication.=20


I believe, however, that it would be possible to set up a system
whereby papers would get evaluated for publication solely on their
scientific soundness, whilst the best papers would still get
recognised and their authors rewarded for making important
contributions. For example I would envisage that the amount charged
for the publication of their manuscript would be inversely related to
the scientific impact of that paper. The ground basis of this proposal
is that papers would be rated retroactively, and this rating would
provide the authors with a quotable evaluation of their publications
that could be used on their CVs or their grant applications.=20


In this slightly idealistic scheme, the scientists' main concern would
be to produce the best science they can, and to deliver it in the best
and most complete format to fellow scientists, and not to seduce
editors and/or referees. Since acceptability would be based on
soundness, not on the evaluation of the interest of the results
described, the referee's role would be to help produce the best
possible articles. And because scientists would be the payers,
scientific publishers would have to compete with one another by
providing the best possible service at the best prices to the
scientific community.=20


If you want to read more on how I perceive such a system could work,
you can find out on the following link:


http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/forum/?letter=3D20030722ej



Cheerio


Etienne Joly


</fontfamily>

<fixed><bigger>******************************************************

Etienne Joly                            |||||||

(pronounce A.T.N.)                       o   o

CPTP, U563 INSERM,                         |

B=E2timent CNRS,                            \./

CHU Purpan,31300 Toulouse

France

E-mail: atn <<atn AT cict.fr>

Phone:(33) 561 15 84 04

Mobile :(33) 662 24 59 91

FAX:  (33) 561 49 90 36             life is a beach

******************************************************</bigger></fixed>=

--Apple-Mail-16-539253727--


[BOAI] CRIS2004

From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:16:46 +0100


Dear All
 
I wanted to bring to your attention a meeting next May in Antwerp -
CRIS2004.  CRIS stands for Current Research Information Systems and
deals with any 'information tool dedicated to provide access to and
disseminate research information'.  To date, it would appear that a lot
of people who work in this field are interested in research databases,
detailing grants proposals and funding decisions, etc.
 
However, there may be scope to integrate this work into that being done
in the OAI field.  You could image a system (repository) that contains
information on research projects from the initial grant applications
through the results and pre-prints to the final published research
papers.  It certainly makes sense to see if there are areas of overlap
between CRIS and OAI.  There may be both technological and political
advantages in integrating such systems.
 
My apologies if this is well-know to you all, but if not the conference
website is at http://www.eurocris.org/conferences/cris2004/index.html
 
Bets wishes

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/> 
 

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


Re: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving

From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:57:00 +0200


Threading: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving from david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk
      • This Message



A friend of mine wrote a search engine specialized in mathematical
papers.

I  do not have more information, but you can try to reach him at
Stefane Fermigier <sf AT fermigier.com>

Cordialement

Bernard Lang


On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 11:25:25PM -0500, Thomas Krichel wrote:
>   David Prosser writes
> 
> > 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. 
> 
>   I am working on a related project that tries to find the full
>   text of papers of papers that are anywhere on the web from the
>   title data only. I have a running implementation for computer
>   science papers. If this method is succesful (I am at an early
>   stage of this work), it could certainly be applied to PubMed
>   title data. It would be a cost effective, though not 100% 
>   guaranteed way to link to the full text.
> 
>   Cheers,
> 
>   Thomas Krichel                      mailto:krichel AT openlib.org
>   visiting CO PAH, Novosibirsk   http://openlib.org/home/krichel
>                              RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
> 
>  

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX


Re: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:25:25 -0500


Threading: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving from david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk
      • This Message

  David Prosser writes

> 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. 

  I am working on a related project that tries to find the full
  text of papers of papers that are anywhere on the web from the
  title data only. I have a running implementation for computer
  science papers. If this method is succesful (I am at an early
  stage of this work), it could certainly be applied to PubMed
  title data. It would be a cost effective, though not 100% 
  guaranteed way to link to the full text.

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel                      mailto:krichel AT openlib.org
  visiting CO PAH, Novosibirsk   http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                             RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel

 


RE: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving

From: dksahu AT vsnl.com
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:39:42 +0530 (IST)


Threading: Re: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving from hbosc AT tours.inra.fr
      • This Message
             RE: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving from arun AT mssrf.res.in

Even in PubMed articles with free full text can be searched separately. This is 
a new feature introduced very recently. 

Add "Free Full Text [filter]" to your search key word to retrieve 
articles which are providing link to full text through LinkOut.

e.g. Open Access AND Free Full Text [filter] will give about 100 articles on 
the topic with free full text of the articles linked from the PubMed.

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 Linda Q. Thede
Sent: 28 August 2003 22:09
To: BOAI Forum
Subject: Re: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving

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] IFLA manifesto?

From: "Iva Melinscak Zlodi" <imelinsc AT irb.hr>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:49:47 +0200


Are there any news on IFLA manifesto on Open access. It should have been 
approved 
on the Annual conference held in August, right? I'm just beeing curious.

Best regards, --
Iva Melinscak Zlodi, bibliotekar
Knjiznica Instituta "Rudjer Boskovic"
Bijenicka 54; HR-10000 Zagreb; Hrvatska

tel. 385 1 4561 043
faks 385 1 4561 095




Re: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving

From: "Linda Q. Thede" <lqthede AT apk.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:39:00 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving from david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk
      • This Message

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




RE: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving

From: "D. K. Sahu" <dksahu AT vsnl.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:24:05 +0530


Threading: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving from david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk
      • This Message

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/> 

 


ATTACHMENT: message.html!


RE: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving

From: "D. K. Sahu" <dksahu AT vsnl.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:22:36 +0530


Threading: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving from david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk
      • This Message

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/> 

 


ATTACHMENT: message.html!


[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .