Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: Request for journal/article/field statistics from Ulrichs and ISI

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:04:48 +0100 (BST)

Threading: [BOAI] Re: Request for journal/article/field statistics from Ulrichs and ISI from harnad AT
      • This Message

    [Further corrobrative data from Carol Tenopir that Ulrich's
     covers 24K peer-reviewed journals, of which 18K are
     self-described as "sholarly/academic." Still a mystery what
     fields the other 6,000 peer-reviewed journals are in. -- SH]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 14:56:34 -0400
From: ctenopir <ctenopir AT>
To: harnad AT
Subject: Re: Request for journal/article/field statistics from Ulrichs and ISI

Stevan, You are right that the exact number of journals depends on the
search strategy, version of Ulrich's used (and even Ulrich's indexing
policies). To avoid the problem of spurious accuracy is why I now always
do as you do and round the number off. I check this every 6 months or so
(last time for part of the strategies was a few weeks ago). Attached are
the Feb. 2003 and Oct. 2003 counts from ulrichsweb with the stategies
given (there are many ways to slice this cake.) Carol

Carol Tenopir, Professor
School of Information Sciences and
Interim Director, Center for Information Studies
University of Tennessee
1345 Circle Park Drive, 451 Communications Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-0341
(865) 974-7911 FAX (865) 974-4967

Searches of, 					Feb 12, 2003	Aug 21, 2003
Carol Tenopir

Requested searches

1. Limited to academic/scholarly periodicals			43677		

2. Limited to active academic/scholarly periodicals		39565		41,232

3. Limited to academic/scholarly refereed periodicals	18675

4. Limited to active academic/scholarly refereed periodicals	17649

5. Limited to academic/scholarly online periodicals		15199

6. Limited to active academic/scholarly online periodicals	14647		15,481

7. Limited to refereed periodicals				25367		26,557

8. Refereed andnot academic/scholarly			6692

Other searches of potential interest

1. Limited to active periodicals (of all types)			175,639

2. Limited to active refereed periodicals (of all types)	23231

3. Limited to active online periodicals (of all types)		33393

4. Limited to active online refereed periodicals (all types)    12575

5. Limited to active online refereed academic/scholarly periodicals	10968

6. Keyword search scien* OR techn* OR medic*
Limited to active online refereed academic/scholarly periodicals	8977

7. Keyword search scien* OR techn* OR medic*		13009
Limited to active refereed academic/scholarly periodicals

8. Keyword search scien* OR techn* OR medic* OR soci*
Limited to active refereed academic/scholarly periodicals	14240

9. Subject search scien* OR techn* OR medic*
Limited to active refereed academic/scholarly periodicals	3840

10. Subject search scien* OR techn* OR medic*
Limited to active refereed academic/scholarly periodicals	5699

11. Subject search scien* OR techn* OR medic* OR soci*
Limited to active refereed academic/scholarly periodicals	6145 

12. Subject search scien* OR techn* OR medic* OR soci*
Limited to active refereed online academic/scholarly periodicals	5076
 12 but active online academic/scholarly					11825

Definitions from the Ulrich's online glossary:

Active: A publication status that indicates that a title is currently
being published.

Refereed: Otherwise known as peer-review. Refers to the system of
critical evaluation of manuscripts/articles by professional colleagues
or peers. The content of refereed publications is sanctioned, vetted, or
otherwise approved by a peer-review or editorial board. The peer-review
and evaluation system is utilized to protect, maintain, and raise the
quality of scholarly material published in serials. Publications subject
to the referee process are assumed, then, to contain higher quality
content than those that aren't.

[BOAI] Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:00:47 +0100 (BST)

Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613) from harnad AT

    [I liked Peter Suber's paper on "The taxpayer argument for open
    The following was written earlier, after I saw his draft, but Peter
    asked me to wait till his paper appeared before posting mine. Our
    positions agree, and differ only slightly in emphasis.]

            Public Access vs. Public Domain

                Stevan Harnad


The tax-paying patient-rights argument for toll-free access to
research is a good one for health-related research, but it does not
generalize to other research -- and hence risks inducing the (incorrect)
conclusion that health-related funded-research is the only special case
that needs toll-free access! It is accordingly important to immunize
against all such narrow interpretations of the case for toll-free access
from the outset, by coupling the health/tax-payer rationale for toll-free
access with the other, more general toll-free-access rationales,

The most general rationale is that toll-free access to research is best
for research itself. Blocking research access blocks research uptake and
usage, thereby blocking the pace, progress, productivity, and impact of
research, in every field. It has to be made very clear that open access
is as much about hadrons (and Hadrian!) as it is about health! Health
just serves to drive the point home, because the connection between
research progress and our health is so transparent, vital and close to
where we all live. But if the rest of scientific and scholarly research
too is worth doing (and funding), and not just health-related research,
then it *all* needs toll-free access just as much as health research does.


The tax-payer argument for toll-free access to research in general
(rather than just to health research in particular) should not be cast
solely, or even primarily, in the form of toll-free research-access
for tax-payers! It should be cast primarily in the form of toll-free
research-access for researchers:

Researchers are funded by tax-payers to conduct research because of the
potential benefits of research progress to tax-payers. Those benefits do
not consist of the tax-payer's freedom to read the research results! Most
tax-payers will have no interest in reading research results. Their
interest is in the potential *application* of research results --
technological, medical, commercial and cultural -- to the improvement of
their lives. 

The primary readers and users of research are researchers, and the
benefits to tax-payers of giving researchers toll-free access to one
another's research are exactly the same as the benefits to tax-payers
of funding the conduct of the research itself: Research is interactive,
collaborative, collective, cumulative. Maximizing researchers' access
to research results maximizes research progress and productivity and
thereby maximizes the probability of eventual applications, and hence
of eventual direct benefits to the tax-payer.

Access-denial (the current subscription/license toll-based status quo)
has the exact opposite effect. It blocks researchers' access to one
another's research. Researchers can only access and use the research for
which their own institution can afford the access tolls. No institution
can afford access to all or even most published research. Most
institutions can afford only a small and shrinking fraction of it.
Hence all research is effectively inaccessible to most researchers. All
that potential research usage and progress is currently being lost,
daily. That is why it is in tax-payers' (and research funders') interests
to make all research accessible toll-free to all potential users

    (THE 95% SOLUTION)

But the appeal and the emphasis should not be unduly focussed on the
tax-payer either. Researchers themselves are the ones that most need to
be targeted. It is critically important to stress that whereas, with help
from the tax-payer and from funding agencies, it is possible to
help cover the costs of publishing in open-access journals, there
are still very few open-access journals in existence today (500
journals, according to ), relative to the amount
of research that is published annually (24,000 journals according to ). This demographic fact
and its consequences must be stated very explicitly and they must 
also be understood clearly:

If the 5%/95% figure is not stated and understood, it is certain that
most people will draw the erroneous and counterproductive conclusion that
publishing research in open-access journals is the fastest, most direct
(perhaps even the only) way for researchers to provide toll-free access
to their research today.

But this is far from being the case. Open-access journals exist for
only 5% of annual research output today. Hence publishing in (and
covering the costs of) open-access journals is only the 5% solution
for refereed research publication and access today. The other 95% of
research can only be published in toll-access journals today. Hence
researchers self-archiving their own toll-access journal publications
in their own institutions' open-access archives is the solution for the
remaining 95%. This too must be strongly encouraged by the tax-payer and
the research-funder, not just the 5% solution. The complementarity as
well as the relative scope of the two means of attaining open access
must be clearly understood if we are to reach the optimal and inevitable
outcome of toll-free access to 100% of the refereed research literature
now rather than decades hence.


Last, there is a limit to how much the government, the research-funder,
and the tax-payer can do through funding and legislation. The traditional
institutional carrot/stick mandate that researchers must "publish or
perish" must now be extended to mandating that they "publish with
maximized access/impact" (i.e., open access) so as to help bring
it home to researchers that it is in their own interest to make their
research accessible toll-free for all potential users. The optimal dual
strategy is hence:

    (i) Wherever a suitable open-access journal for you to publish your
    research in exists today (c. 5%), publish it there, today.

    (ii) For the rest of your research (c. 95%), for which a suitable
    open-access journal does not exist today, publish it in your preferred
    toll-access journal, but also self-archive it in your institutional
    toll-free access archive, today.


The Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, HR 2613) (PASA) rightly
invokes the taxpayer argument in support of open access to (funded)
research. However, the *means* by which PASA proposes to provide open
access is far more radical and confrontational than necessary -- and the
reason is that the Bill's proponents clearly had only the 5% solution in
mind in proposing it, as if that were the only possible solution.

All that is needed to serve all the needs of researchers, research,
and tax-payers is open access -- that is, immediate, permanent, free,
online access to the full-text of every research journal article. To
attain this, it is not necessary that all authors and publishers renounce
copyright protection for all those texts. It is only necessary that
*someone* provide open access to them! Open-access journals do that,
but they represent less than 5% of the 24,000 journals there are. What
about the rest?

All that the PASA need mandate is that all journal articles based on
funded research must be made openly accessible. To comply with this,
neither the author nor the publisher needs to renounce copyright
protection for those articles. The journal must simple allow the
author to self-archive them, in his own institutional open-access
archive -- as 55% of the journals sampled already do officially (and
many others will agree to do if asked on a per-article basis):
And even for the few journals that might refuse, the author has a legal
alternative that is almost as simple, and effectively provides the open
access anyway: self-archive the unrefereed preprint plus the corrections.

PASA could help bring the 55% figure to the 95% needed (together with the
open-access journals' 5%) to make the entire research journal literature
100% open-access -- by simply mandating open access itself.

By needlessly mandating more -- the renunciation of copyright (forcing
authors not only to seek a journal that will accept those terms, instead
of the journal they might have preferred, but also putting their texts at
risk of being plagiarized or corrupted) -- PASA would needlessly elicit
opposition from publishers and authors alike.

The tax-payer is best served if the access to (and hence the usage
and impact of) tax-funded research is maximized by requiring that its
full-texts must be made openly accessible online to all would-be users,
everywhere. There is no need whatsoever for those texts to be put into
the public domain in order to obtain that universal benefit.

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):

Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT 

[BOAI] Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 17:05:24 +0100 (BST)

Threading: [BOAI] Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613) from harnad AT
      • This Message

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Sally Morris made a very good point:

>         Stevan Harnad wrote:
>sh>     "Most of the existing 24,000 journals would not
>sh>      accept to publish public-domain texts"
> I think this is probably inaccurate. I would guess that practically all of
> those journals do publish works which are currently governed by the Public
> Domain status of US Government works.

Sally is quite right to point out that I had overlooked the fact that many
publishers are already at home with the fact that a certain percentage
of their authors cannot sign copyright transfer agreements because they
are government employees. Effectively, the Sabo Bill, if it passed, would
simply increase the percentage of such authors. So it was incorrect on
my part to say that they would not accept to publish them: Given the
percentage of journal content that is based on US funded research, they
would be forced to.

But the Bill has not passed yet, and the publishers (and authors) will
still have their say. The percentage of authors who did not sign copyright
transfer in the past (for this reason, or even for other reasons)
was small enough so that publishers could discount it as statistical
variation. But publishers are likely, I think, to try to contest it if it
risks becoming the majority case. Do they have a valid argument?

I think they do, for the simple reason that if the public-domain
constraint is being introduced in order to create open access, then it is
a far stronger constraint than it needs to be. Merely forcing publishers
to allow authors to self-archive accomplishes the very same goal in a
far less radical and risky way -- for both publishers and authors.

For authors, putting their texts into the public domain leaves them
less protected from plagiarism and text-alteration. For publishers,
a large increase of public-domain content could easily threaten
their viability. In this day and age, all we have to imagine is that
another copycat company could systematically (and legally) harvest and
aggregate open-access public-domain contents as soon as they appear, and
immediately offer them, at cut-rate prices, both online and on-paper. Why
subscribe to journal X, which published the contents, if you can subscribe
to journal or aggregator Y for the same contents, at a far lower
price? (US funded research is a huge chunk of many journals'
contents. That's why this Bill is so important. But that's also why it's
so important that it should avoid overkill.)

Wouldn't exactly the same risk be there if instead of mandating that the
contents be public-domain, the Bill mandated only that they be
open-access? Definitely not. With just open access, copyright continues to
be asserted, whether the author transfers it to the publisher (retaining
only the open-access self-archiving right) or merely licenses the content,
retaining the copyright. Self-archived contents cannot be harvested and
re-sold, online or on-paper. The publisher (or author) could immediately
take legal action against that, as before. Self-archiving is the
prerogative of the author, not of third parties, and it does not even
include the *author's* right to sell or re-sell his own texts (that has
to be negotiated separately, as always, if copyright is transfered).

The self-archiving right is merely the author's right to make his own
full-text freely accessible online to any would-be user on the web,
worldwide. That means any individual user, webwide, can read it
on-screen, navigate it computationally, download it, save it, and print
it off. It also means that harvesters like google can link to, invert
and index the full text but they cannot -- if it is copyrighted --
re-sell the text, online or on-paper (otherwise they would effectively
become the rival publisher mentioned above).

Now we come to a delicate point that it is best if all parties --
open-access advocates and adversaries alike -- face up to squarely
and frankly : Although it is true that mandating only open-access rather
than public-domain entails far less risk for publishers (and authors), it
is not true that it entails *zero* risk for publishers. Whereas putting the
contents into the public domain would allow -- even invite -- attempts to
undercut the publisher's business, making the contents openly accessible
online could eventually have a similar effect, indirectly: For whereas
with public-domain contents, rival cut-rate publishers could legally
capture the publisher's market, it is conceivable that with open-access
contents the demand for the publisher's version would simply shrink,
because users could could get everything they needed using the open-access

There is no point denying that this could be the eventual effect
of the Sabo Bill even if it mandated only open-access rather than
public-domain. The glue of OAI-interoperability for all self-archived research means that
eventually all users would have the option of accessing all research
journal content for free from one global virtual OAI archive in the
sky. But the speed and certainty of abrupt demand-loss is far greater
with the public-domain option -- and with no advantage at all to
anyone. Publishers would be put at a needless increased risk of a
forced, hasty transition to open-access publishing -- a choice that
should be left to them, and to supply and demand, and to time: *as
long as open-access itself is provided right now.* Nor would authors
be better-served by abruptly being forced to place their texts into an
unprotected, untested limbo.

The transition to open-access publishing, if and when it actually took
place, would be a far slower, smoother, and more natural one if it
occurred as the gradual result of author/institution self-archiving
rather than a draconian public-domain mandate. The open-access
cost-recovery model is not yet a tested one. Nor are the sources
from which to cover the costs yet available or assured. Moreover,
the model's probability of succeeding is far greater once journal
publishers have had a chance to accommodate to it gradually -- as they
would if authors were gradually beginning to self-archive their own
texts in their own institutional archives.

With the help of the glue of OAI-interoperability and cross-archive
search engines like OAIster
users too would gradually learn the benefits and possibilities of a
growing online open-access literature. No specific journal would be put
abruptly at risk, because self-archiving is a distributed, anarchic
process, even with the glue of OAI-interoperability. It would take
a long time for libraries or users to ascertain at what point enough of
the contents of a given journal were openly accessible to make it safe
to cancel the subscription or license to it.

And if and when cancellation pressure did begin to build up, publishers
would have a chance to experiment gradually with cost-cutting and
down-sizing, to keep making ends meet. There is much talk today about
immediate transitions to open-access publishing, with wide variation in
how much it should cost per paper (from <$500 to >$1500) but nobody 
knows what the the true costs of open-access publishing should or will
be. Some think the cost per paper will be the same as now, but instead
of being paid by a set of subscribing institutions, it will be paid by
the author's institution. But if the author's institution is already
self-archiving the paper, it is not at all clear what service the
publisher will need to perform, over and above peer review and editing.

All these variables would have a chance to adjust themselves gradually
if the only thing mandated by the Sabo Bill were open access itself.
We would have immediate open-access, but none of the other risky and
unpredictable consquences of abruptly mandating that all US
funded-research papers must be put in the public domain.

> To my mind, the question really is whether either the authors or their
> employer actually do anything to avail themselves of the works' Public
> Domain status.  No one seems to have been able to answer this question.
> If they don't, why should the Sabo Bill's extension of identical status to
> Federally funded works, in itself, be expected to achieve anything for the
> Open Access agenda?

You are quite right that mandating public domain alone does not even
ensure that the research will be made open access! It only provides the
*possibility* of making it open access (which again boils down to
self-archiving, for publishers always had the possibility of becoming
open-access publishers!). Mandating open access instead -- by making
it a condition of research funding that all reulting refereed journal
articles must be open-access -- thereby mandates an *action* on the part
of the grant-recipient, namely, that he either publishes the research
in an open-access journal (if a suitable one exists -- 5% of journals
currently) or he publishes it in a conventional journal (95%), and also
self-archives it in his institutional open-access archive (or a central
one, such as PubMedCentral, where one exists).

Mandating public domain forces publishers to immediately accept
public-domain texts (and forces authors to make their texts public
domain) without any assurance that the texts will be made openly
accessible online by anyone.

Mandating open access forces the grant recipient and institution to
ensure that their own research output is openly accessible. For 5%
of research, this mandate can be fulfilled by publishing it in an
open-access journal. For the rest of the 95%, it will force publishers to
allow self-archiving by exactly the same token as it would have forced
them to accept public-domain content -- but at far less risk to both
publisher and author.

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):

Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT 

[BOAI] On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:34:07 +0100 (BST)

Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT

       On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

                    Stevan Harnad

As something of a veteran in the crusade for open access, I feel that I
have to point out to the growing number of open-access advocates that we
have lately been getting a little carried away with open-access publishing
-- as if it were the *only* way to attain open access, rather than
just one of two complementary ways (open-access self-archiving being
the other way).

This one-sided impression (that open-access = open-access publishing)
is all over the public press at the moment, in the US and Europe. This is
a (gentle) irony that historians will eventually have some fun sorting
out: How did it happen that when at long last we finally began to awaken
to the need for open access to research we first went on to risk losing
yet *another* decade waiting passively for open-access publishing to
prevail, when we could in the meanwhile already have had open access too? 

Waiting passively for what? For the 24,000 existing toll-access
journals to either convert to
open-access of their own accord or to go belly-up in the face of new
open-access competitors (24,000 of them?) that would capture their
authorship. This, at a time when in reality there existed only about
500 open-access journals  -- which is less than 5% of
the refereed research literature even if we double the estimate.

The crux of the matter is this: 24,000 journals (or even ISI's hard-core
8,000) are unlikely to be induced to convert to open-access on the
strength of a press flurry, petitions, declarations, threats to
boycott, promises of government subsidy for open-access author-costs, US
congressional bills, and songs of praise for open access by the research
community and the media worldwide. For there is one glaring omission in
all of this: It is all based on passivity on the part of the research

(It is not even clear what percentage of researchers would actually be
willing to switch from publishing in their currently preferred journals
to open-access journals even if 24,000, rather than just 500, open-access
journals already existed for them to switch *to*!)

Why would publishers take the research community's much publicized
yearning for open access seriously as long as that yearning is expressed
only in this passive way, with the expectation that all the effort should
be made on their behalf by journal publishers, for the sake of this open
access that the researchers purport to need and want so much? Who would
not question the depth of the research community's desire for open access
as long as that desire keeps being voiced only vicariously, rather than
through self-help efforts, as if all possibility and responsibility for
action lay exclusively with publishers?

What will make publishers take the research community's expressed
wishes seriously will be *action* on the part of researchers, taking the
powerful self-help step that is actually within their own power to take
right *now*, in the interest of immediate open access: self-archiving
their own published research output. This will be the only credible (and
indeed irresistible) proof of the research community's desire for open
access. Moreover, it is guaranteed to provide immediate open access for
the research of every author who actually does self-archive. 

The only reason the research community is not yet taking this simple
self-help step in sufficient numbers -- they *are* taking it in
increasing numbers, but those numbers are as yet far from sufficient -- is that
the research community does not yet *understand* that this more direct
means of gaining immediate open access for their own research output
(through institutional self-archiving) is already within their reach.

The one-sided emphasis that the research community is currently
placing on the 5% solution (open-access publishing), instead of
also promoting -- at least as vigorously -- the complementary 95%
solution (open-access self-archiving of the remaining 95% of their
refereed-research publications) is now becoming part of the problem
instead of the solution, leaving researchers and their institutions and
funders both inactive and unaware about what they could already be doing
in order to provide open access right now, rather than just waiting
passively and hoping that the 500 figure will somehow climb to 24,000
just on the strength of polemics and wishful thinking alone!

It will take a long time and a lot of effort to spawn or convert
24,000 journals, but their current full-text contents could already be
made openly accessible in to time, if researchers would only take the
action that is already open to them: immediate self-archiving.

The most common brake on researchers' taking this immediate
action is an inchoate worry about copyright. But the proof that
copyright cannot be the real obstacle is already available! Even on
the most conservative construal of the Romeo copyright-policy statistics
at least 55% of the research literature could already be self-archived
(and hence openly accessible) with the journal publisher's formal and official
blessing *today* (indeed, yesterday) -- yet researchers are still not
doing it in anywhere near the numbers that even the most conservative
percentage would allow! 

(The potential percentage is in reality much higher than 55%:
for the rest of the authors publishing in journals that do not
yet officially support self-archiving can simply *ask* their
publishers, on a per-article basis, to agree to their self-archiving;
many more publishers will agree. And that percentage can be raised
to 100% if the remaining authors, in those cases where their
publisher refuses, simply use the preprint-plus-corrigenda strategy ).

But even as the 55% solution, self-archiving trumps the 5% solution by
an order of magnitude, and instantaneously! If only it were actually
practised. But it is not, yet. And that is what needs to be remedied.
It is not remedied by focusing all attention and effort on the 5%

In October, Germany will have a national policy meeting (through its
Max-Planck Societies, and in collaboration with the European Cultural
Heritage Organization) on "Open Access to the Data and Results of the
Sciences and Humanities" with a view to formulating and signing the
"Berlin Declaration," which is meant to be a model open-access policy
for Europe as well as the rest of the world. In November there are
Norwegian and UK national meetings on the same theme. The US has the
Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613) pending. It is so
important that all of these timely efforts give due weight to *both* of
the complementary open-access strategies, rather than just open-access

Here is a simple, transparent, unified strategy for an institution,
or a research-funder, or a nation wishing to maximize the access to --
and thereby the impact of -- its research output:

    (1) All research output should be published in open-access journals
    if and when suitable ones exist (5% of research, currently) and

    (2) the other 95% of research output should be published in
    the researcher's journal of choice, but also self-archived in the
    author's institutional open-access archive -- now.

Our research group at Southampton and Loughborough will soon report
data on the current rate of growth of open access via each of these
two complementary strategies, in terms of the annual number of
articles that are openly accessible each way as a percentage of total
published articles per year so far. We will describe how Tim Brody's
citebase and citation/usage correlator can be used to
measure the citation and usage impact of open-access articles and
authors, and how Mike Jewell's standardised open-access CV software can be used to encourage
and assess research output and impact. We will re-present Steve Lawrence's
that in computer science, open-access articles are cited 4.5 times as
often as toll-access articles. (And if our own data from an ongoing
collaboration with Charles Oppenheim are ready, we will report the open-
vs. toll-access impact-advantage for other disciplines, in controlled
pairwise comparisons of open vs toll access in the same journal and year,
for self-archived and non-self-archived articles, and across time.)

The cumulative message will be that the 95% solution (self-archiving),
if implemented now, would increase research visibility, research
impact, and hence research progress and productivity substantially.
We will will even estimate graphically how much research impact US,
UK, and French research -- and research in general -- are losing daily,
monthly and yearly, because of *lack* of open access, and how long it
would take to stanch that daily/monthly/yearly loss if the research
community pursued only the passive 5% solution, rather than also
actively self-archiving immediately!

A proposal for an institutional 
and national 
self-archiving policy will also be described, to help focus and put into
context open-access efforts such as the Public Access to Science Act 
and the Bethesda Statement

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):

Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT 

[BOAI] Re: How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 13:34:14 +0100 (BST)

Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research from harnad AT

The following data posted by Peter Suber in 
indicate that open-access articles (from BioMedCentral) average at least
89 times as many downloads as toll-access articles (from Elsevier). (The
89 is probably an undercount, because it does not include PubMedCentral

    "Elsevier has put some PowerPoint slides on the web summarizing
    its interim results for 2003. Slide #16 shows that there were 4.5
    million full-text articles in ScienceDirect on June 30, 2003, and
    slide #15 shows that there were 124 million article downloads in
    the 12 months preceding that date. This means that its articles
    were downloaded an average of 28 times each during the past year.

    "For comparison I asked Jan Velterop of BioMed Central what the
    download figure was for BMC articles during the same time period. He
    reports that the average is about 2500 per year, which doesn't
    count downloads of the same articles from PubMed Central. This is
    89 times the Elsevier number. "

Combine these download data with the citebase data on the correlation
between downloads and citations
and you will be able to estimate the dramatic way in which open access
enhances research citation impact, confirming what Steve Lawrence reported
in 2001 for computer science research:
and what Kurtz et al. reported for astrophysical research:

(In an ongoing collaboration with Charles Oppenheim we are currently
making controlled pairwise comparisons of citation impact between
open-access and toll-access articles that appear in the same journal and
year, comparing self-archived and non-self-archived articles, across time,
and across disciplines. We hope to extend these comparisons with the
help of ISI's citation database.)

Those individuals, institutions, research-funders, tax-payers and nations
who are interested in increasing the visibility, usage and impact of
their research output should take special note of these data! Apply the
estimates in reverse if you wish to estimate the amount of research impact
(and its rewards) being that is currently being *lost* daily, monthly,
and yearly by researchers, their institutions, and by research itself as
long as we delay providing immediate open access to all research output --
as we could already do today, by self-archiving it.

Stevan Harnad

[BOAI] Berlin Conference on Open Access to Data and Results: 20-22 Oct

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 02:21:32 +0100 (BST)

Conference on
    Open Access to the Data and Results of the Sciences and Humanities
    20 - 22 Oct 2003, Berlin

The 3-day conference aims to bring together key players from national
and international research organizations, learned societies, museums,
archives, libraries and research funding agencies and political
institutions, commercial and non-for profit publishing services
concerned about the future of scientific e-publishing and scholarly
communication. The declared aim of the meeting is to provide guidance to
all players involved on how to help build a future-proof, flexible,
open, and high-quality scholarly and scientific publishing system.

    * Prepare the transformation of all areas of research from the print
into the electronic world.
    * Establish an open-access policy on the Internet for scientific
information, including cultural heritage.
    * Define future models for web-based scientific/scholarly
communication and publishing and for making cultural heritage accessible
on the Web.
    * Provide blueprints on how to make publishing alternatives work in
a sustainable way.
    * Encourage funding agencies and research organizations to support
the creation and implementation of open access models for scientific
    * Encourage funding agencies and research organizations to support
the transfer of existing content both from science and culture to the
new medium.
    * Define prerequisites for a future Web of Culture and Science.


Dr. Stefan Echinger
Head of the Division Strategic Planning
Max Planck Society
echinger AT
Tel: +49 (0) 89 - 21 08 - 14 30 or - 14 31

Theresa Velden
Heinz Nixdorf Center for Information Management
in the Max Planck Society (ZIM)
velden AT
Tel: +49 (0) 89 - 32 99 - 15 51

[BOAI] Seminar: Open Archives and Public Access to Environmental Info, Stockholm, Sep.11.

From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hugo_Fjelsted_Alr=F8e?= <Hugo.Alroe AT>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:15:39 +0200

For your information, there is a seminar on open archives and public access 
tomorrow in Sweden. Public access is one of the less spoken of goals of open 
archives - so if anyone happens to be in the neighbourhood ...
regards, Hugo Alrĝe
Open Archives and Public Access to Environmental Info

Place: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Blekholmsterrassen 36, 
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2003

The seminar concerns the concept of open archives within the field of 
environmental research (and related areas such as agriculture, forestry and 
veterinary medicine ...). One theme in the seminar will be the UNECE Convention 
on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to 
Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) 

09.00-09.30 Coffee and registration
09.30-09.35 Welcome
09.35-10.05 Introduction to the Aarhus Convention Jonas Ebbesson, Doctor of
Law and Senior Lecturer of  Environmental Law at the Stockholm University. 
10.05-10.20 Information from The Aarhus Convention Electronic Information
Tools Task Force, Bengt Littorin Swedish EnviroNet 
10.20-10.30 Short break
10.30-11.30 "Open archives within the field of environmental 
research", Hugo
Fjelsted Alrĝe, Postdoctoral Scientist at the Danish Research Centre for
Organic Farming and Administrator of Organic Eprints
11.30-12.30 "Open archives and intellectual property", Mark Bide, 
12.30-13.30 Lunch buffet 
13.30-14.30 Group work  - free time for our lecturers...
14.30-14.45 Coffee
14.45-16.00 Panel debate (Mark Bide, Hugo Fjelsted Alrĝe, Jonas Ebbesson)
Jan Hagerlid will conduct the panel debate. Jan works with the Netuniversity
and electronic publishing at Bibsam, the Department for National
Co-ordination and Development at the Royal Library of Sweden.
16.00 Closing

The seminar is a joint venture between the libraries of the Swedish University 
of Agricultural Sciences(SLU) <> and the 
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency <>. It is partly funded by BIBSAM 
(the Royal Library´s Department for National Co-ordination and Development)<>.

[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:05:38 +0100 (BST)

Threading: [BOAI] On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, [Identity Deleted] wrote:

> Stevan,
> [Identity Deleted], our electronic resources coordinator, was inspired by
> your quote of 55% of journals allowing self-archiving to ask why we don't
> just go back and retrospectively add that 55% to a University archive.
> [ ]
> I have been pushing [Ivy League University, identity deleted] to establish 

> such an archive.  I thought it was a great idea to get a collection of 
> content immediately.  Do you know of other Universities that are doing 
> this and if not, why not?

Thanks for your message. 

(1) The 55% figure comes from the Romeo sample of 7000+ journals, of
which 55% already officially support author/institution self-archiving.
(Many more journals will agree if asked.)

(2) In most cases the support probably extends to the retrospective legacy
literature as this is not a great source of potential revenue and many
more journals (e.g., Science) already support self-archiving after an
interval -- from 6 months to three years -- after the publication date.

(3) Although making a university's past research output openly
accessible is very valuable and desirable (and doing it is to be
strongly encouraged), making its *current* research output openly
accessible is even more valuable and desirable (and even more strongly
to be encouraged!).

(4) The 55% figure is actually an estimate of the *minimum* amount of
*current* research output that universities can already self-archive
immediately, without the need to make any further request of the
publisher, or any change in the copyright transfer of licensing

(5) The challenge with self-archiving (whether current or legacy research
output) is not, and has never been, publishers or copyright. Publishers
will cooperate, in the interests of science and scholarship.

(6) The real challenge is establishing a systematic institutional
self-archiving policy that will ensure the speedy self-archiving of
research output. The library can help 
especially by offering a proxy self-archiving service
but it is the university and its departments that need to strongly
encourage or even mandate self-archiving by its researchers
their policy backed up by the research funding agencies

But going after retrospective research is a good idea too. I hope
universities that have been implementing this will reply and share their

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):

Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT 

[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:23:41 +0100 (BST)

Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT

[Identity deleted] wrote:

> I agree with you completely that we need to persuade many more academic
> authors to self-archive, and... we have been working to achieve this. 

I know and appreciate that some funding and advocacy support has been
given to self-archiving worldwide: Yet though it may seem churlish,
I feel that -- relative to what is already within reach today -- *far*
more support needs to be given to self-archiving. If you asked for it
in percentage terms, I would say that of the support (both funding
and promotion) that funders and supporters are investing in open
access, something closer to 95% should be devoted to the 95% solution
(self-archiving) and something closer to 5% to the 5% solution (open
access publishing), if we are hoping for anything like proportionate
overall returns on our investment in open access to research. To
invest more in a lower-yield stock makes no sense (though I am sure
there are ways to divert my stock-market simile to make it appear

> From your messages, you do not seem to allow for the benefit to the
> campaign for self-archiving from work with publishers and funding
> agencies.

As far as I am aware, the work with publishers and funding agencies is
currently all being directed at the 5% solution, open-access publishing:
Considerable effort is being invested in trying to persuade and help
publishers to become open-access publishers, and to persuade funding
agencies to support open-access publishing.

That is all fine, and welcome, but as a benefit to the campaign
for *self-archiving* this is rather like the benefit to a campaign
for universal vegetarianism that arises from trying to persuade beef
producers to produce broccoli instead: Yes, to the extent you succeed,
you indirectly benefit the campaign for universal vegetarianism, but not
nearly as much as you would if you also addressed the consumers directly,
rather than just the producers!

In fact, if anything, it is concertedly pursuing the 95% strategy now
(self-archiving) that will also benefit the open-access publishing
strategy in the long run, hastening and facilitating the transition.

Researchers and their institutions need to be persuaded to self-archive,
directly, and not just as a side-effect or spin-off of a campaign for
open-access publishing. The reason this is the 95% solution is that
every self-archived article is immediately eo ipso open-access -- and
the 95% of authors who have no suitable open-access journals to publish
in today can immediately self-archive their toll-access journal articles,
today, rather than wait for more open-access journals to be created, or
toll-access journals to be converted. 

In other words, self-archivers can bring about immediate, 100% open access
overnight, without waiting passively for the 5% of journals that are
open-access to inch their way toward 100%, just
as consumers could immediately bring about universal vegetarianism by
switching from beef to broccoli without waiting passively for producers
to do it for them.

Yes, there is one concrete thing that addressing publishers and
funding agencies instead of addressing researchers can do to benefit
the self-archiving route to open access, and that is to help persuade
journals to support self-archiving -- as 55% of them already do! But,
as has been pointed out repeatedly, even without that extra 45% support,
55% already trumps 5% -- so that card needs to be played at least in
proportion to its strength!

Yet persuading publishers and research funders to support self-archiving
is *not* what is actually being done. The primary target in the current
ongoing campaign is open-access publishing, the 5% solution. The
self-archiving is only dangling there, as a vague afterthought. Its
logical and causal role is not clearly explained by open-access publishing
advocates. It is merely being mentioned as another "good thing" one
might want to do, for some reason or other! 

This is why the true 5%/95% proportion needs to be brought out in the
open now: To make it clear that far from being just *another good thing*
one might do, alongside open-access publishing, self-archiving is by far
the fastest and most direct route to open access itself, and needs to be
promoted directly, alongside open-access publishing, and in proportion
to its potential power, rather than just as a vague spin-off of the
campaign for open-access publishing.

> We are not only persuading publishers to move to open access for the
> publication opportunities but also to make open access (including
> self-archiving) more acceptable to the academic community.
> You know as well as any of us how academics cite the attitude of 
> as a reason for not risking self-archiving. 

The problem insofar as self-archiving is concerned is not one of publisher
"attitude." It is one of publisher *policy* -- actual as well as 
perceived. And the policy in question is the one that distinguishes
the 55% of journals that already support self-archiving in their
copyright/licensing policies (Romeo's "blue" and "green" 
journals) from
the 45% that do not yet support self-archiving (Romeo's "white" 

But note that the policy in question is *not* the one that distinguishes
the <5% of journals that are already open-access from the >95% that are
not! Trying to persuade the publishers of the  remaining 45% of journals
to become blue or green is not the same as persuading the remaining 95%
of publishers to become open-access publishers! To change metaphors:
a campaign to persuade McDonald's to remove beefburgers from their menu
does not benefit a campaign to persuade them to add vegeburgers to their
menu -- and the road to 100% success for the former campaign is a long
and uncertain one, compared to the second.

So vague spin-offs from the campaign for open-access publishing are
not the way to get the white publishers to go blue or green: A clear,
motivated and proportionate compound strategy for open access needs
to be formulated out of the two open-access strategies. Both their
complementarity and their relative power must be made transparent. And
that means making it clear to toll-access publishers that converting to
open-access publishing is *not* the only way they can help support the
open access that the research community so much needs: Adopting a blue
or green publisher self-archiving policy also counts as support.

And (as demonstrated by the fact that even the 55% of annual articles
that are published in the blue and green of journals are still far from 
being self-archived yet), the real thing that is holding back
self-archiving is neither publishers' attitudes nor their policies. The
real problem is the *absence* of a systematic self-archiving policy
on the part of institutions and research funders: 

What is needed is strongly and systematically encouraged or even
*mandated* open access, as a matter of explicit institutional and
funding-agency policy, through a simple extension of the existing
carrot/stick policy that is called "publish or perish" to: 
"publish with
maximised impact." That means open access, and mandating it means it must
be provided by the researcher, whether by publishing in an open-access
journal (where possible: 5%) or by self-archiving (the remaining 95%).

The current draft of the otherwise welcome and promising Public
Access to Science Act in the US Congress -- Sabo Bill, H.R. 261 -- is
needlessly proposing to mandate that all funded research publications must
be put in the *public domain* (renouncing all copyright protection),
which would be overkill even for the 5% solution, whereas all that
really needs to be mandated is that all funded research be made *open
access,* via either the 5% or the 95% strategy. The "Bethesda 
is similarly focused entirely on the 5% strategy, calling for funding
agencies to cover the costs of publishing in open-access journals:
no mention of the cost-free 95% alternative at all, except as a way of
archiving articles that have been published in open-access journals!

> Likewise academics are worried about the attitude of funding agencies,
> and if we can get the funding agencies to support open access journals,
> this will also lead to more self-archiving. 

I think this is a red herring. Academics are worried about impact
factors, because they know that articles in journals with higher impact
factors carry more weight (with both funding agencies and promotion
committees) than articles in journals with lower impact factors. Impact
factors come from journal track-records for quality. They have nothing
whatsoever to do with journal cost-recovery policy. 

(It is *new* journals, whether online or on-paper, whether toll-access
or open-access, that start out with a handicap, until they establish
a track-record. No a-priori lobbying of funding agencies can or should
change this.

If we want to address academics' worries about research impact, we
should be persuading them to self-archive, in order to enhance the
impact of their own research immediately, regardless of which journal
it appeared in.

Hence it is self-archiving itself that funding agencies should be
persuaded to favour, not certain new journals, simply on account of
their cost-recovery models!

> The two strategies are inter-twined and the situation is not 
> as black-and-white as your 5%/95% analogy.  

It is not an analogy but a realistic estimate of the relative scope and
power of the two complementary open-access strategies. The two strategies
are indeed intertwined, in fact complementary, but in a very concrete and
specific way: If the goal is 100% open access for all refereed journal
articles, as soon as possible, then the optimal compound strategy for
all authors is:

    (1) Publish your articles in open-access journals whenever a suitable
    one exists (<5% currently) 
    (2) publish the rest of your articles in toll-access journals
    (>95%) as you do already, but self-archive them as well, in your
    own institution's open-access eprint archives

Advocates of open access should, correspondingly, promote both
complementary strategies, intertwined (and apportioned) as above.

As to the black/white nature of the 5%/95% dichotomy: It is not
black/white, it is 5% light-gray and 95% dark-gray! And it accurately
reflects the relative scope, speed and power of the two open access
strategies today.

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):

Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT 

RE: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving

From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun AT>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:20:27 +0530

Threading: RE: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving from dksahu AT
      • This Message

Dear Dr Sahu:
You should talk to editors of Indian STM journals and offer them your help
in the transition to electronic/ open access journals. You may also promote
the idea of self archiving. 
Best wishes.

-----Original Message-----
From: D. K. Sahu [mailto:dksahu AT]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:24 PM
To: 'BOAI Forum'
Subject: RE: [BOAI] PubMed and self-archiving

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 <>  as well as from Bioline
International ( <> ). 
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.
&db=PubMed&list_uids=11298473&dopt=Abstract) and
to Bioline's site in LinkOut page (

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.


DK Sahu, MD
Executive Editor, Indian Journal of Medical Sciences 

Managing Editor, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-boai-forum AT
[mailto:owner-boai-forum AT] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 28 August 2003 17:11
To: boai-forum AT
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:


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
<> ).  It might even be 
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 C Prosser PhD


SPARC Europe


E-mail:  david.prosser AT
<mailto:david.prosser AT> 

Tel:       +44 (0) 1865 284 451

Mobile:  +44 (0) 7974 673 888 <> 


ATTACHMENT: message.html!

[BOAI] Open Access Initiative from the Company of Biologists

From: Peter Suber <peters AT>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:36:50 -0400

Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Open Access Initiative from the Company of Biologists from peters AT



The Company of Biologists announces that - from January 2004  its journals 
- Development, Journal of Cell Science and The Journal of Experimental 
Biology - will be offering authors the option of  'open access'.

In response to the biological community's drive for freedom of access to 
scientific research, The Company of Biologists will offer authors the 
choice to have their work published free of charge (in the usual way) or as 
an author-funded open access paper. Open access is a new mode of 
publishing, which removes the subscription barrier and allows all internet 
users completely free access to the material. Authors choosing to take 
advantage of the open access alternative will be charged a publication fee, 
which, as an introductory offer, will be heavily subsidised by the Company 
of Biologists.

The Company of Biologists will offer this author-funded publication model 
for a trial period of one year. The traditional subscription model will 
operate in parallel as part of a hybrid publishing experiment. Authors will 
be asked to make the decision as to whether to take advantage of the open 
access offer when their papers are accepted. Those choosing the company's 
traditional free publication alternative will still benefit from no page 
charges, no colour charges, and free access to papers after 6 months.

As a small not-for-profit publisher, The Company of Biologists relies on 
subscription revenue to cover its publishing costs and to fulfil its 
charitable remit.  However, this experiment with an open access publishing 
model is an important development, allowing authors increased flexibility 
and choice. The Company of Biologists is dedicated to its continuing 
financial support for the community through grants, travelling fellowships 
and sponsorship.

For further information visit

Or write to:
Executive Editor,
The Company of Biologists Ltd,
Bidder Building,
140 Cowley Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0DL, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)1223 420482
Fax: +44 (0)1223 423353
E-mail: cob AT

The Company of Biologists  scientific journals for today's researchers

ATTACHMENT: message.html!

[BOAI] Wellcome Trust statement on open access

From: Peter Suber <peters AT>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:57:13 -0400

Forwarding from the Wellcome Trust.  This position statement is now online=
at the WT site,



A position statement by the Wellcome Trust in support of open access=

The mission of the Wellcome Trust is to "foster and promote research 
the aim of improving human and animal health."  The main output of this=20
research is new ideas and knowledge, which the Trust expects its=20
researchers to publish in quality, peer-reviewed journals.

The Trust has a fundamental interest in ensuring that neither the terms=20
struck with researchers, nor the marketing and distribution strategies used=
by publishers (whether commercial, not-for-profit or academic) adversely=20
affect the availability and accessibility of this material.

With recent advances in Internet publishing, the Trust is aware that there=
are a number of new models for the publication of research results and will=
encourage initiatives that broaden the range of opportunities for quality=20
research to be widely disseminated and freely accessed.

The Wellcome Trust therefore supports open and unrestricted access to the=20
published output of research, including the open access model (defined=20
below), as a fundamental part of its charitable mission and a public=20
benefit to be encouraged wherever possible.

Specifically, the Trust:
=B7    welcomes the establishment of free-access, high-quality scientific=20
journals available via the Internet;

=B7    will encourage and support the formation of such journals and/or=20
free-access repositories for research papers;

=B7    will meet the cost of publication charges including those for=20
online-only journals for Trust-funded research by permitting Trust=20
researchers to use contingency funds for this purpose;

=B7    encourages researchers to maximize the opportunities to make their=20
results available for free and, where possible, retain their copyright, as=
recommended  by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition=20
(SPARC), the Public Library of Science, and similar frameworks;

=B7    affirms the principle that it is the intrinsic merit of the work, and=
not the title of the journal in which a researcher's work is published,=20
that should be considered in funding decisions and awarding grants.
As part of its corporate planning process, the Trust will continue to keep=
this policy under review.

Definition of open access publication1

An open access publication is one that meets the following two conditions:
1.   The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free,=20
irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual (for the lifetime of the applicable=20
copyright) right of access to, and a licence to copy, use, distribute,=20
perform and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative=
works in any digital medium for any reasonable purpose,  subject to proper=
attribution of authorship2, as well as the right to make small numbers of=20
printed copies for their personal use.

2.   A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,=20
including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard=
electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at=20
least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution,=20
scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established=20
organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution,=20
interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences,=20
PubMed Central is such a repository).


1. An open access publication is a property of individual works, not=20
necessarily of journals or of publishers.

2. Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to provide=
the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of=
the published work, as they do now.

The definition of open access publication used in this position statement=20
is based on the definition arrived at by delegates who attended a meeting=20
on open access publishing convened by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute=20
in July 2003.

ATTACHMENT: message.html!

[BOAI] Wellcome Trust report on science publishing

From: Peter Suber <peters AT>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 08:58:13 -0400


A new report published today by the UK's leading biomedical research=20
charity reveals that the publishing of scientific research does not operate=
in the interests of scientists and the public, but is instead dominated by=
a commercial market intent on improving its market position.

Conducted by SQW the report, An economic analysis of scientific research=20
publishing, is one of the most comprehensive analyses of its kind and=20
provides an insight into a publishing industry which generates some =A322=20
billion annually.

The report is published by the Wellcome Trust which plans to use this as a=
first step in facilitating a dialogue between various players in the=20
scientific publishing field to address the concerns which the Trust has=20
regarding current publishing practices.  The ultimate aim of this dialogue=
would be to develop a publishing system that meets the needs of all=20
publishers, authors, academics and funders, and best promotes the public=20
good of scientific work  that is, disseminate research outputs to all who=20
have an interest in them.

The report reveals an extremely complex market for scientific publishing,=20
influenced by a host of different players each with different=20
priorities.  These include:

* Commercial publishers: working to secure and enhance their business=
* Not-for-profit publishers, including Learned Societies: who seek a=20
satisfactory return on their journals in order to fulfil their broader=20
* Libraries: who have to purchase a wide portfolio of journals to meet the=
needs of the academics they serve, but who do so on a limited, and=20
sometimes decreasing, budget,
* Academic researchers: whose primary concern is to disseminate their=20
research in reputable journals, regardless of their cost and accessibility.

Dr Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said: "As a funder of=20
research, we are committed to ensuring that the results of the science we=20
fund are disseminated widely and are freely available to=20
all.  Unfortunately, the distribution strategies currently used by many=20
publishers prevent this.

"We want to see a system in place that supports open and unrestricted=20
access to research outputs and we would like to encourage others to support=
this principle.  Today's report maps out the market as it stands and we=20
hope to use this as a way of starting a dialogue with others to join us in=
finding a new model for the way we publish research, and one that satisfies=
the needs of those involved."

The report highlights the merits of electronic publishing which is already=
being utilised as a tool for improving the efficiency and accessibility of=
research findings.  Although previously regarded with suspicion by=20
academics who doubted quality control and the peer review process involved,=
reservations about this form of publishing are gradually decreasing.

"Electronic publishing has transformed the way scientific research is=20
communicated," said Dr Mark Walport.  "Take the Human Genome Project 
as an=
example.  The data from that project was made immediately available on the=
world-wide web and could be used by everyone free of charge.  It was the=20
absence of constraints and the ease of access that enabled us to reach vast=
numbers of researchers in more than 100 countries.

"The model of the Human Genome Project need not be unique and it is the=20
principle of free access that we want to champion.  The fundamental point=20
is that as a research funder we have to question whether it is right that=20
we, and others, are in the position of having to pay to read the results of=
the research that we fund."

Media contact:
Noorece Ahmed
Wellcome Trust Media Office
Tel: 020 7611 8540
mailto:n.ahmed AT

Notes to editors:
1.   Commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, An economic analysis of scientific=
research publishing has been conducted by the economic development=20
consultants SQW.
2.   The full report is available on the Wellcome Trust website:=20
3.   The Wellcome Trust=92s position statement in support of open access=20
publishing is available at:
The Wellcome Trust is an independent, research funding charity, established=
under the will of Sir Henry Wellcome in 1936. The Trust's mission is to=20
foster and promote research with the aim of improving human and animal=

ATTACHMENT: message.html!

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

 E-mail: .