Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: Request for journal/article/field statistics from Ulrichs and ISI
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
[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 utk.edu> To: harnad AT coglit.soton.ac.uk 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 web.utk.edu/~tenopir/ Searches of ulrichsweb.com, 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 ecs.soton.ac.uk>
[I liked Peter Suber's paper on "The taxpayer argument for open access." https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OANews/Message/97.html 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 (1) HEALTH RESEARCH VS. ALL OTHER KINDS OF RESEARCH 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, pre-emptively. 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. (2) TAX-PAYER ACCESS VS. RESEARCHER ACCESS 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 (worldwide). (3) PUBLISHING IN OPEN-ACCESS JOURNALS (THE 5% SOLUTION) VS. SELF-ARCHIVING TOLL-ACCESS PUBLICATIONS IN OPEN-ACCESS ARCHIVES (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 http://www.doaj.org/ ), relative to the amount of research that is published annually (24,000 journals according to http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/analysis/ ). 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. (4) "PUBLISH (WITH MAXIMIZED ACCESS/IMPACT) OR PERISH" 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. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ (5) PUBLIC ACCESS VS. PUBLIC DOMAIN 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): http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm 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. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#publisher-forbids 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): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html or http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org
[BOAI] Re: Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 version. 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 http://www.openarchives.org/ 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. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1 With the help of the glue of OAI-interoperability and cross-archive search engines like OAIster http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/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 ↵ really 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): 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] On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ 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 http://www.doaj.org/ -- 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 community. (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 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt -- 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 http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm 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 http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 ). 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% solution! 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 publishing. 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 http://citebase.eprints.org/ and citation/usage correlator http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php 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 http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi can be used to encourage and assess research output and impact. We will re-present Steve Lawrence's finding http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/ 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 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html and national http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ 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 http://publish.uwo.ca/~strosow/Sabo_Bill_Paper.pdf and the Bethesda Statement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 ↵ & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html or http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org
[BOAI] Re: How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
The following data posted by Peter Suber in http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html 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 downloads.) PETER SUBER: "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. http://www.investis.com/reedelsevierplc/data/interims2003b.ppt "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 http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php 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: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html and what Kurtz et al. reported for astrophysical research: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2829.html (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. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm Stevan Harnad
[BOAI] Berlin Conference on Open Access to Data and Results: 20-22 Oct
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Conference on Open Access to the Data and Results of the Sciences and Humanities 20 - 22 Oct 2003, Berlin http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/index.html 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 publishing. * 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. Contact Dr. Stefan Echinger Head of the Division Strategic Planning Max Planck Society echinger AT mpg-gv.mpg.de 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 zim.mpg.de 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 agrsci.dk>
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, ↵ Stockholm 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) ↵ <http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.htm>). Program: 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, ↵ Rightscom Ltd 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) <http://www.bib.slu.se/eng/> and the ↵ Swedish Environmental Protection Agency < ↵ http://www.internat.naturvardsverket.se/>. It is partly funded by BIBSAM ↵ (the Royal Library´s Department for National Co-ordination and Development)< ↵ http://www.kb.se/ENG/kbstart.htm>.
[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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. > [ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html ] > > 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.) http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm (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 agreement. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 (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. http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html (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 http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do especially by offering a proxy self-archiving service e.g. http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/proxy_archive.html but it is the university and its departments that need to strongly encourage or even mandate self-archiving by its researchers http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html their policy backed up by the research funding agencies http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ But going after retrospective research is a good idea too. I hope universities that have been implementing this will reply and share their experience. Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 ↵ & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html or http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org
[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
[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 otherwise!). > 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. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1 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 http://www.doaj.org/ 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! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm 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 ↵ publishers > 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 ↵ merely 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" ↵ journals). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable.gif 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 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2981.html -- 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 ↵ Statement" 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! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2878.html > 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. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2415.html) 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. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm 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! http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ > 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) and (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 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html 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): 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] PubMed and self-archiving
From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun AT mssrf.res.in>
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. Arun -----Original Message----- From: D. K. Sahu [mailto:dksahu AT vsnl.com] 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 www.jpgmonline.com <http://www.jpgmonline.com/> as well as from Bioline International ( www.bioline.org.br/jp <http://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/ <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 <mailto:david.prosser AT bodley.ox.ac.uk> Tel: +44 (0) 1865 284 451 Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888 http://www.sparceurope.org <http://www.sparceurope.org/>
[BOAI] Open Access Initiative from the Company of Biologists
From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
ANNOUNCEMENT OPEN ACCESS INITIATIVE FROM THE COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS 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 www.biologists.com/web/openaccess.html 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 biologists.com The Company of Biologists scientific journals for today's researchers
[BOAI] Wellcome Trust statement on open access
From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Forwarding from the Wellcome Trust. This position statement is now online= =20 at the WT site, http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/awtvispolpub.html --Peter. ---------- A position statement by the Wellcome Trust in support of open access= publishing The mission of the Wellcome Trust is to "foster and promote research ↵ with=20 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= =20 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= =20 are a number of new models for the publication of research results and will= =20 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= =20 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= =20 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= =20 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= =20 works in any digital medium for any reasonable purpose, subject to proper= =20 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= =20 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). Notes: 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= =20 the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of= =20 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.
[BOAI] Wellcome Trust report on science publishing
From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING CONCERNS A new report published today by the UK's leading biomedical research=20 charity reveals that the publishing of scientific research does not operate= =20 in the interests of scientists and the public, but is instead dominated by= =20 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= =20 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= =20 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= position, * Not-for-profit publishers, including Learned Societies: who seek a=20 satisfactory return on their journals in order to fulfil their broader=20 objectives, * Libraries: who have to purchase a wide portfolio of journals to meet the= =20 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= =20 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= =20 finding a new model for the way we publish research, and one that satisfies= =20 the needs of those involved." The report highlights the merits of electronic publishing which is already= =20 being utilised as a tool for improving the efficiency and accessibility of= =20 research findings. Although previously regarded with suspicion by=20 academics who doubted quality control and the peer review process involved,= =20 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= =20 example. The data from that project was made immediately available on the= =20 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= =20 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= =20 the research that we fund." Media contact: Noorece Ahmed Wellcome Trust Media Office Tel: 020 7611 8540 mailto:n.ahmed AT wellcome.ac.uk Notes to editors: 1. Commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, An economic analysis of scientific= =20 research publishing has been conducted by the economic development=20 consultants SQW. 2. The full report is available on the Wellcome Trust website:=20 www.wellcome.ac.uk 3. The Wellcome Trust=92s position statement in support of open access=20 publishing is available at: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/awtvispolpub.html The Wellcome Trust is an independent, research funding charity, established= =20 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= health.
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org .