Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:57:13 +0200


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from freemamh AT lavc.edu
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

  Stevan Harnad writes

> Hence my conclusion that distributed, interoperable OAI institutional
> archives are enough (and the fastest route to open-access). No need
> to harvest their contents into central OAI discipline-based archives
> (except perhaps for redundancy, as backup).

  I agree. 

  But this is not what I mean by "not enough". I suggest that 
  institutional archives will lie empty unless there are better
  incentives for scholars to contribute to them. If you tell
  them that it will open their scholarship to the world to
  read, they will listen. If you tell them, figures at hand, 
  how much it does, and how much impact they gain---relatively
  to their colleagues in the offices next door---they will act.
  To be able to build such measures, you need to build complicated
  datasets. This is too complex a task to be done in all disciplines
  at once. Therefore you need to work discipline by discipline. 
  
> It should be noted, though, that Thomas Krichel's excellent RePec
> archive and service in Economics -- http://repec.org/ -- goes
> well beyond the confines of OAI-harvesting! RePec harvests non-OAI
> content too, along lines similar to the way ResearchIndex/citeseer --
> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs

  Not really, these systems are quite different actually. But
  this is a matter for another email...

> by (3) self-archiving them on arbitrary Web and FTP sites (and
> hoping they will be found or harvested by services like Repec or
> ResearchIndex)

  RePEc is not a harvesting service. RePEc has pioneered the way
  OAI operates before there was OAI. The degree of interoperability
  that it achieves goes way beyond what OAI achieves at present,
  but we are only at the start with OAI, remember. Basically RePEc aims to 
  achieve a type of dataset that will allow to measure impact---as
  mentioned in my first paragraph---but it is not quite there yet.
  In the meantime, it acts as the starting point for a whole bunch
  of user and contributor services.

  (sorry, I could not resist...)

> My conclusion in favor of institutional self-archiving is based on the
> evidence and on logic, and it represents a change of thinking,
> for I had originally advocated (3) Web/FTP self-archiving --
> http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html -- then switched allegiance
> to central self-archiving (1), even creating a discipline-based archive:
> http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ But with the advent of OAI in 1999,
> plus a little reflection, it became apparent that
> institutional self-archiving (2) was the fastest, most direct, and most
> natural road to open access: http://www.eprints.org/
> And since then its accumulating momentum seems to be confirming that this
> is indeed so: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2212.html
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim.ppt

  Hmm, with you changing your mind, and with more than a little
  reflection over that many years, I think all of us on this
  forum will be convinced that the best road is not an easy topic
  to approach. I don't have the answer either, but I will show
  instead that there is no answer.

  The way I see it that if you want to achieve self-archiving,
  you have to get authors to self-archive. To do that, you need
  to find the right incentives. One way is to have Clifford Lynch
  running around campus, switching off every independent web
  service because it is a security risk, and then force faculty
  to digitally publish through a central facility. Granted, my 
  vision of Clifford's intention is exagerated, but even a milder
  form of it will not succeed. This is no way to run a university.
  Right? So you are left off to find a way in which you have to give
  incentives to academics. Now, please accept my hypothesis that
  publishing is done more with the academic colleagues in mind
  rather than with the university's central administration 
  in mind. Then you inevitably end up with a situation where
  you have to get a whole discipline along to self-archive. As
  long as others in the discipline are not doing it, there 
  is little interest in the individual scholar doing it. They
  may send the paper directly to closed-access publisher facilities
  or, may be in addition, upload it on a web site somewhere.

> >   The primary sense of belonging
> >   of a scholar in her research activities is with the disciplinary
> >   community of which she thinks herself a part... It certainly
> >   is not with the institution.
> 
> That may or may not be the case, but in any case it is irrelevant to
> the question of which is the more promising route to open-access. Our
> primary sense of belonging may be with our family, our community,
> our creed, our tribe, or even our species. But our rewards (research
> grant funding and overheads, salaries, postdocs and students attracted
> to our research, prizes and honors) are intertwined and shared with our
> institutions (our employers) and not our disciplines (which are often
> in fact the locus of competition for those same rewards!)

  Sure, that is why we need institutional support to take the competition
  head on, by maximising the impact of our work. But the object of 
  the competition is still the discipline.

> Content "aggregation," in other words, is a paper-based notion. 
In
> the online era, it merely means digital sorting of the pointers to
> the content.

  I understand that. But you can aggregate and aggregate, as 
  long as you not prove that formal archiving is improving impact,
  you are not likely to get far with your formal archiving.

> >   I am afraid, there more and more such faculty members. Much
> >   of the research papers found over the Internet are deposited
> >   in the way. This trend is growing not declining.
> 
> You mean self-archiving in arbitrary non-OAI author websites? 

  I do.

> There is another reason why institutional OAI archives and official
> institutional self-archiving policies (and assistance) are so
> important. In reality, it is far easier to deposit and maintain
> one's papers in institutional OAI archives like Eprints than to set
> up and maintain one's own website.  All that is needed is a clear
> official institutional policy, plus some startup help in launching
> it. (No such thing is possible at a "discipline" level.)

> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html
> http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm
> http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi

  If this is what authors feel, then this is wonderful. But the
  proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the authors do not
  deposit, you will have to think (yet again) about your best
  strategy.

  Incidentally, have you deposited all your papers in institutional
  archives? I see some ~harnad above. Heaven forbid I tell Clifford
  about this :-) 

> But where there is a causal contingency -- as there is
> between (a) the research impact and its rewards, which academics like as
> much as anyone else, and (b) the accessibility of their research -- 
academics
> are surely no less responsive than Prof. Skinner's pigeons and rats to
> those causal contingencies, and which buttons they will have to press
> in order to maximize their rewards!
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

  Yes, but the arguing in the aggregate is not sufficient, I think.
  You have to demonstrate that to individual academics, figures at
  hand. In the meantime you have to collect formally archive contents.
  Institutional archives is one way, departmental is another way,
  discipline based archiving another, but there is no "right" or
  "wrong" way. Whatever way there is discipline-based services will
  be a key to providing incentives to scholars. 

  With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,


  Thomas Krichel                         http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                                     RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel



Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Linda Thede <lqthede AT apk.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 13:12:24 -0500


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from freemamh AT lavc.edu
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

The problem that Margaret writes about is particularly true in practice
disciplines such as nursing or physical therapy. Those in these disciplines
are also at a great disadvantage when it comes to accessing the literature -
outside of academic medical centers, few healthcare facilities have good
libraries. They of course will among the big benefactors of OAI.

I do have an additional question, and perhaps it stems from not understanding
this process, but how will all these individual institutional papers be indexed
so interested persons can find them.

"Margaret H. Freeman" wrote:

> On 3/16/03 9:15 AM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad AT 
ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > The bottom line is this: The free
> > Eprints.org software (for example) can be installed within a few 
days. It
> > can then be replicated to handle all the departmental or research 
group
> > archives a university wants, with minimal maintenance time or costs. 
The
> > rest is just down to self-archiving, which takes a few minutes for 
the
> > first paper, and even less time for subsequent papers (as the 
repeating
> > metadata -- author, institution, etc., can be "cloned" into 
each new
> > deposit template). An institution may wish to impose an institutional
> > "look" on all of its separate eprints archives; but apart 
from that,
> > they can be as autonomous and as distributed and as many as desired:
> > OAI-interoperability works locally just as well as it does globally.
>
> I'd like to ask Stevan Harnad what arrangements can be made for publishing
> faculty and independent scholars who don't have the kind of institutional
> connections like a major research university for making their work OAI
> accessible without having to create personal websites. Is there some
> distributed depository that is or could be made available to them?
>
> Margaret Freeman
> Emeritus Professor
> Los Angeles Valley College

--
Linda Q. Thede
435-4 Chandler Drive
Aurora, OH 44202
lqthede AT apk.net
330-562-3281




[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 18:17:40 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from freemamh AT lavc.edu
      • This Message

On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Margaret H. Freeman wrote:

> I'd like to ask Stevan Harnad what arrangements can be made for publishing
> faculty and independent scholars who don't have the kind of institutional
> connections like a major research university for making their work OAI
> accessible without having to create personal websites. Is there some
> distributed depository that is or could be made available to them?

(1) Self-archiving of refereed, published research is not the same
as self-publishing.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.4

(2) Unaffiliated faculty can publish as they always did, but they can
self-archive their preprints and postprints either in central archives
such as http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ or (as is often the case
in the relations between universities and unaffiliated scholars), they
can be allowed to self-archive in a university's eprint archive.

(3) Or perhaps your question referred to the hypothetical future,
if/when all toll-access journals become open-access journals, charging
authors' insitutions for the peer-review service? My guess would be that
unaffiliated authors are rare enough so a slush fund can cover their
costs for them out of a tiny portion of the costs paid by the institutions
of affiliated authors. (I don't believe this is a significant issue -- and
it is in any case hypothetical, as most journals are not yet open-access.)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#4.2

Stevan Harnad


Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: "Margaret H. Freeman" <freemamh AT lavc.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:35:42 -0500


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from lqthede AT apk.net
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org

On 3/16/03 9:15 AM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> 
wrote:

> The bottom line is this: The free
> Eprints.org software (for example) can be installed within a few days. It
> can then be replicated to handle all the departmental or research group
> archives a university wants, with minimal maintenance time or costs. The
> rest is just down to self-archiving, which takes a few minutes for the
> first paper, and even less time for subsequent papers (as the repeating
> metadata -- author, institution, etc., can be "cloned" into each 
new
> deposit template). An institution may wish to impose an institutional
> "look" on all of its separate eprints archives; but apart from 
that,
> they can be as autonomous and as distributed and as many as desired:
> OAI-interoperability works locally just as well as it does globally.

I'd like to ask Stevan Harnad what arrangements can be made for publishing
faculty and independent scholars who don't have the kind of institutional
connections like a major research university for making their work OAI
accessible without having to create personal websites. Is there some
distributed depository that is or could be made available to them?

Margaret Freeman
Emeritus Professor
Los Angeles Valley College



[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:15:56 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: [BOAI] Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from freemamh AT lavc.edu

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:

>   Stevan Harnad writes:
> 
>sh> There is no need -- in the age of OAI-interoperability -- for
>sh> institutional archives to "feed" central disciplinary 
archives:
> 
>   I do not share what I see as a  blind faith in interoperability
>   through a technical protocol. 

I am quite happy to defer to the technical OAI experts on this one, but let
us put the question precisely: 

Thomas Krichel suggests that institutional (OAI) data-archives
(full-texts) should "feed" disciplinary (OAI) data-archives,
because OAI-interoperability is somehow not enough. I suggest that
OAI-interoperability (if I understand it correctly) should be enough. No
harm in redundant archiving, of course, for backup and security, but not
necessary for the usage and functionality itself. In fact, if I understand
correctly the intent of the OAI distinction between OAI data-providers -- 
http://www.openarchives.org/Register/BrowseSites.pl 
-- and OAI service-providers --
http://www.openarchives.org/service/listproviders.html 
-- it is not the full-texts of data-archives that need to be "fed" to
(i.e., harvested by) the OAI service providers, but only their metadata.

Hence my conclusion that distributed, interoperable OAI institutional
archives are enough (and the fastest route to open-access). No need
to harvest their contents into central OAI discipline-based archives
(except perhaps for redundancy, as backup). Their OAI interoperability
should be enough so that the OAI service-providers can (among other things)
do the "virtual aggregation" by discipline (or any other computable
criterion) by harvesting the metadata alone, without the need to harvest
full-text data-contents too.

It should be noted, though, that Thomas Krichel's excellent RePec
archive and service in Economics -- http://repec.org/ -- goes
well beyond the confines of OAI-harvesting! RePec harvests non-OAI
content too, along lines similar to the way ResearchIndex/citeseer --
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs -- harvests non-OAI content in computer
science. What I said about there being no need to "feed" 
institutional OAI
archive content into disciplinary OAI archives certainly does not apply
to *non-OAI* content, which would otherwise be scattered willy-nilly
all over the net and not integrated in any way. Here RePec's and
ResearchIndex's harvesting is invaluable, especially as RePec already
does (and ResearchIndex has announced that it plans to) make all its
harvested content OAI-compliant!

To summarize: The goal is to get all research papers, pre- and
post-peer-review, openly accessible (and OAI-interoperable) as soon as
possible. (These are BOAI Strategies 1 [self-archiving] and 2
[open-access journals]: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
). In principle this can be done by (1) self-archiving them in central
OAI disciplinary archives like the Physics arXiv (the biggest and
first of its kind) -- http://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions
-- by (2) self-archiving them in distributed institutional OAI
Archives -- http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim.ppt -- by (3)
self-archiving them on arbitrary Web and FTP sites (and hoping they
will be found or harvested by services like Repec or ResearchIndex)
or by (4) publishing them in open-access journals (BOAI Strategy 2:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/journals.shtml ).

My point was only that because researchers and their institutions
(*not* their disciplines) have shared interests vested in maximizing
their joint research impact and its rewards, institution-based
self-archiving (2) is a more promising way to go -- in the age of
OAI-interoperability -- than discipline-based self-archiving (1), even
though the latter began earlier. It is also obvious that both (1) and
(2) are preferable to arbitrary Web and FTP self-archiving (3), which
began even earlier (although harvesting arbitrary Website and FTP contents
into OAI-compliant Archives is still a welcome makeshift strategy
until the practise of OAI self-archiving is up to speed). Creating new
open-access journals and converting the established (20,000) toll-access
journals to open-access is desirable too, but it is obviously a much
slower and more complicated path to open access than self-archiving,
so should be pursued in parallel.

My conclusion in favor of institutional self-archiving is based on the
evidence and on logic, and it represents a change of thinking,
for I had originally advocated (3) Web/FTP self-archiving --
http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html -- then switched allegiance
to central self-archiving (1), even creating a discipline-based archive:
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ But with the advent of OAI in 1999,
plus a little reflection, it became apparent that
institutional self-archiving (2) was the fastest, most direct, and most
natural road to open access: http://www.eprints.org/ 
And since then its accumulating momentum seems to be confirming that this
is indeed so: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2212.html
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim.ppt

>   The primary sense of belonging
>   of a scholar in her research activities is with the disciplinary
>   community of which she thinks herself a part... It certainly
>   is not with the institution. 

That may or may not be the case, but in any case it is irrelevant to
the question of which is the more promising route to open-access. Our
primary sense of belonging may be with our family, our community,
our creed, our tribe, or even our species. But our rewards (research
grant funding and overheads, salaries, postdocs and students attracted
to our research, prizes and honors) are intertwined and shared with our
institutions (our employers) and not our disciplines (which are often
in fact the locus of competition for those same rewards!)

>   Therefore, if you want to fill
>   institutional archives---which I agree is the best long-run way
>   to enhance access and preservation to scholarly research--- [the]
>   institutional archive has to be accompanied by a discipline-based
>   aggregation process. 

But the question is whether this "aggregation" needs to be the 
"feeding"
of institutional OAI archive contents into disciplinary OAI archives, or
merely the "feeding" of OAI metadata into OAI services.

>    The RePEc project has produced such an aggregator
>   for economics for a while now. I am sure that other, similar
>   projects will follow the same aims, but, with the benefit of
>   hindsight, offer superior service. The lack of such services
>   in many disciplines,  or the lack of interoperability between
>   disciplinary and  institutional archives, are major obstacle to
>   the filling  the institutional archives.  There are no
>   inherent contradictions between institution-based archives
>   and disciplinary aggregators,

There is no contradiction. In fact, I suspect this will prove to be a
non-issue, once we confirm that (a) we agree on the need for
OAI-compliance and (b) "aggregation" amounts to metadata-harvesting 
and
OAI service-provision when the full-texts are in the institutional
archive are OAI-compliant (and calls for full-text harvesting only
if/when they are not). Content "aggregation," in other words, is a
paper-based notion. In the online era, it merely means digital sorting
of the pointers to the content.

>   In the paper that Stevan refers to, Cliff Lynch writes,
>   at http://www.arl.org/newsltr/226/ir.html
> 
>cl> But consider the plight of a faculty member seeking only broader
>cl> dissemination and availability of his or her traditional journal
>cl> articles, book chapters, or perhaps even monographs through use of
>cl> the network, working in parallel with the traditional scholarly
>cl> publishing system.
> 
>   I am afraid, there more and more such faculty members. Much
>   of the research papers found over the Internet are deposited
>   in the way. This trend is growing not declining.

You mean self-archiving in arbitrary non-OAI author websites? There is
another reason why institutional OAI archives and official institutional
self-archiving policies (and assistance) are so important. In reality,
it is far easier to deposit and maintain one's papers in institutional
OAI archives like Eprints than to set up and maintain one's own website.
All that is needed is a clear official institutional policy, plus
some startup help in launching it. (No such thing is possible at a
"discipline" level.)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html 
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm
http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi

>cl> Such a faculty member faces several time-consuming problems. He or
>cl> she must exercise stewardship over the actual content and its
>cl> metadata: migrating the content to new formats as they evolve over
>cl> time, creating metadata describing the content, and ensuring the
>cl> metadata is available in the appropriate schemas and formats and
>cl> through appropriate protocol interfaces such as open archives
>cl> metadata harvesting.
> 
>   Sure, but academics do not like their work-, and certainly
>   not their publishing-habits, [to] be interfered with by external
>   forces. Organizing academics is like herding cats!

I am sure academics didn't like to be herded into publishing with the
threat of perishing either. Nor did they like switching from paper to
word-processors. Their early counterparts probably clung to the oral
tradition, resisting writing too; and monks did not like be herded from
their peaceful manuscript-illumination chambers to the clamour of
printing presses. But where there is a causal contingency -- as there is
between (a) the research impact and its rewards, which academics like as
much as anyone else, and (b) the accessibility of their research -- academics
are surely no less responsive than Prof. Skinner's pigeons and rats to
those causal contingencies, and which buttons they will have to press 
in order to maximize their rewards!
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

Besides, it is not *publishing* habits that need to be changed, but
*archiving* habits, which are an online supplement, not a substitute,
for existing (and unchanged) publishing habits.

>cl> Faculty are typically best at creating new
>cl> knowledge, not maintaining the record of this process of
>cl> creation. Worse still, this faculty member must not only manage
>cl> content but must manage a dissemination system such as a personal 
Web
>cl> site, playing the role of system administrator (or the manager of
>cl> someone serving as a system administrator).
> 
>   There are lot of ways in which to maintain a web site or to get
>   access to a maintained one. It is a customary activity these days and
>   no longer requires much technical expertise. A primitive integration
>   of the contents can be done by Google, it requires  no metadata.
>   Academics don't care  about long-run preservation, so that problem
>   remains unsolved. In the meantime, the academic who uploads papers to a 
web
>   site takes steps to resolve the most pressing problem, access.

Agreed. And uploading it into a departmental OAI Eprints Archive is 
by far the simplest way and most effective way to do all of that. All it
needs is a policy to mandate it:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html

>cl> Over the past few years, this has ceased to be a reasonable activity
>cl> for most amateurs; software complexity, security risks, backup
>cl> requirements, and other problems have generally relegated effective
>cl> operation of Web sites to professionals who can exploit economies of
>cl> scale, and who can begin each day with a review of recently issued
>cl> security patches.
> 
>   These are technical concerns. When you operate a linux box
>   on the web you simply fire up a script that will download
>   the latest version. That is easy enough. Most departments
>   have separate web operations. Arguing for one institutional
>   archive for digital contents is akin to calling for a single web
>   site for an institution. The diseconomies of scale of central
>   administration impose other types of costs that the ones that it was to
>   reduce. The secret is to find a middle way.

I couldn't quite follow all of this. The bottom line is this: The free
Eprints.org software (for example) can be installed within a few days. It
can then be replicated to handle all the departmental or research group
archives a university wants, with minimal maintenance time or costs. The
rest is just down to self-archiving, which takes a few minutes for the
first paper, and even less time for subsequent papers (as the repeating
metadata -- author, institution, etc., can be "cloned" into each new
deposit template). An institution may wish to impose an institutional
"look" on all of its separate eprints archives; but apart from that,
they can be as autonomous and as distributed and as many as desired:
OAI-interoperability works locally just as well as it does globally.

>cl> Today, our faculty time is being wasted, and expended ineffectively,
>cl> on system administration activities and content curation. And,
>cl> because system administration is ineffective, it places our
>cl> institutions at risk: because faculty are generally not capable of
>cl> responding to the endless series of security exposures and patches,
>cl> our university networks are riddled with vulnerable faculty machines
>cl> intended to serve as points of distribution for scholarly works.
> 
>   This is the fight many faculty face every day, where they
>   want to innovate scholarly communication, but someone
>   in the IT department does not give the necessary permission
>   for network access...

I don't think I need to get into this. It's not specific to
self-archiving, and a tempest in a teapot as far as that is concerned. An
efficient system can and will be worked out once there is an effective
institutional self-archiving policy. There are already plenty of excellent
examples, such as CalTech: 
http://library.caltech.edu/digital/ 
See also:
http://software.eprints.org/#ep2

Stevan Harnad


[BOAI] Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:30:10 +0000 (GMT)


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

Quote/Comments on:

    Clifford A. Lynch: "Institutional Repositories: 
    Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age"
    http://www.arl.org/newsltr/226/ir.html

Cliff Lynch makes many very good points. I disagree with him only on one
point, but it is a fundamental one, with important practical and
strategic implications for the immediate future: What is the most pressing
reason for creating and filling institutional repositories at this
time? Cliff thinks it is to promote new forms of scholarship whereas
I think it is to promote refereed research. The new scholarship
is coming too, and will certainly grow in importance, but the immediate
rationale for creating and filling institutional repositories is for the
self-archiving of institutional research input, in order to maximize
its research impact, by maximizing user access to it, through open access:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/

> faculty have been exploring ways in which works of authorship in the new
> digital medium can enhance teaching and learning and the communication
> of scholarship

This is the familiar and valid complaint that the university has not
been sufficiently supportive of online innovations by faculty, neither
in terms of resourcing it nor in terms of rewarding it. This is true,
and it is indeed a problem, and no doubt slowing innovation. But it is
also being remedied, by increasing recognition and support, and the
persistence of innovative faculty. It is *not* the reason universities
need digital repositories urgently at this time, and this is *not* the
(main) content that will fill them.

> faculty have exploited the Net as a vehicle for sharing their ideas
> worldwide, whether these ideas are expressed in relatively familiar
> forms such as digital versions of traditional journal articles or (less
> commonly) in entirely new forms...

This is a combination of the two kinds of content that are at issue
here. I am putting the primary emphasis on the "familiar forms" 
rather
than the new ones (important and valuable though they too are). The
progress, productivity and funding of scholarly and scientific research
depend directly on its visibility and accessibility: the degree to which
it is found, seen, read, used, cited, applied, built-upon by other
researchers. In a word, it all depends on *research impact.* And research
impact depends on research access. Whatever blocks access blocks impact.

There are 20,000 peer-reviewed research journals, across all disciplines
worldwide, publishing 2,000,000 articles annually. Almost all of these
articles are accessible to researchers (i.e., to their potential users)
only if their institution can afford the toll-access (subscription,
license) to the journal in which they were published. And most
universities cannot afford toll-access to most journals -- even the
richest can only afford a minority of the 20,000. This means that *all*
research on the planet is inaccessible to *most* of its potential
users. And every single case of access-denial is a case of potential
impact loss. The overwhelming, pressing rationale for institutional
repositories is accordingly: to put an end of this daily impact loss --
a legacy of the paper era when the true costs of paper access made it
unavoidable, but no longer necessary in the online era, when open access
can be provided by institutions for their own refereed research output.

It is quite natural for researchers to self-archive their own refereed
research output in their own institutional archives, giving it away to
all of its would-be users worldwide for free, in order to maximize its
research impact, for they have been giving it away free to their
publishers for the very same reason throughout the paper era: Unlike all
other authors, researchers have always given away their work, written
only for impact, not for royalty revenue from toll-income. Hence it is
only natural that now that it has become possible to do so, they should
self-archive it in their own institutional archives so as to put an end
to the needless daily impact loss that is a legacy of the paper era.

This -- and not new forms of scholarship -- is the immediate, pressing
rationale for creating and filling institutional repositories at this
time. And this (refereed research output) is the content with which they
need to be filled, as soon as possible. With it -- and their newfound
role as *outgoing* collections of a university's own research output
instead of *incoming* collections of the output of other universities --
the institutional archives will also become the repositories for new
forms of scholarship. But the first and most urgent step is to put an
end to the needless daily impact loss for peer-reviewed research.

What about the peer-reviewed journals? Their toll-access mechanism of
cost-recovery may continue to co-exist with the open-access versions in
the institutional repositories, with those researchers whose institutions
can afford it using the former and those who cannot using the latter
-- or the journals may eventually have to cut costs and downsize to
the essentials in the online era, which may well prove to be just
peer-review service-provision alone, with the access, storage and
distribution offloaded onto the institutional repositories. 

Peer-review only costs about $500 per outgoing paper, whereas
those institutions who can afford it are paying an average of $2000
(collectively) per incoming paper in access-tolls -- in exchange for
the very limited access this provides, restricted to the minority who
can afford it.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1

> faculty are well motivated to rise above the institutional failures to
> help them disseminate their works

Indeed they are, in the service of maximizing their research impact and
putting an end to its needless loss. But maximizing research impact is
in the interest of their institutions too, as the benefits of research
impact (research funding, prizes, prestige) are shared by faculty and
their institutions.

Let me count the three most obvious ways that the self-archiving of
institutional research output benefits researchers' institutions:

(1) Open access to an institution's research output maximizes its
impact and its rewards, as noted.

(2) Open access, being reciprocal if practised by other institutions too,
maximizes faculty access to the research output of *other* institutions,
generating better-informed and more current research (using the research
output of others, as you would have them use yours!).

(3) If/when there is ever an eventual downsizing of peer-reviewed
journals to the remaining online-age essentials (probably only peer
review itself), then there is also the prospect of eventual institutional
windfall savings of up to 75% on serials budgets.

> a faculty member seeking... broader dissemination and availability of
> his or her traditional journal articles...faces several time-consuming
> problems...  [F]aculty time is being wasted, and expended ineffectively,
> on system administration activities and content curation.

Cliff here means the time-consuming problem of maintaining a website for
self-archiving one's own research output. An institutional archive
is certainly a more sensible solution than having each researcher
maintain his own archive.

> Institutional repositories can maintain data in addition to authored
> scholarly works. In this sense, the institutional repository is a
> complement and a supplement, rather than a substitute, for traditional
> scholarly publication venues.

Not only is the institutional archive a supplement rather than a
substitute when it self-archives data that could not be included with
the published article, but it is a supplement even when it self-archives
the article: The self-archived open-access version is a supplement to the
journal's toll-access version, to maximize its research impact. It is not
a substitute for journal publication -- and certainly not a substitute
for peer review -- though it might one day become a substitute for
toll-access (for those who can afford it: for those who cannot, it
is already a substitute today!).

> where the disciplinary practice is ready, institutional repositories can
> feed disciplinary repositories directly. In cases where the disciplinary
> culture is more conservative, where scholarly societies or key journals
> choose to hold back change, institutional repositories can help
> individual faculty take the lead in initiating shifts in disciplinary
> practice.

There is no need -- in the age of OAI-interoperability -- for
institutional archives to "feed" central disciplinary archives: They
need only feed OAI metadata harvesters. The institution is the natural
locus for self-archiving its own research output, for each of
its disciplines. And it is individual researchers, not disciplines,
who will overcome the old habits, with the incentive to self-archive
coming from the discipline-universal benefits of maximizing research
impact. These benefits are shared by researchers and their institutions,
not by researchers and their disciplines (which are more of a locus
for *competing* for impact than for *sharing* it!). And journals are not
holding back change (and cannot): They are themselves changing with the
new possibilities the online medium has provided to allow researchers to
maximize their research impact:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

But it is certainly true that university archives can help faculty take
the lead by providing the resources and policy that facilitates
self-archiving:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling

> Institutional repositories can encourage the exploration and adoption of
> new forms of scholarly communication... This, to me, is perhaps the most
> important and exciting payoff

Here is where Cliff and I disagree. Exciting as they are, the new forms
are not the immediate priority: Open access to the "old forms" is. 
Then
the new forms will come too. But first the full research impact of the
old forms, at last. They will pave the way for the rest.

> The first potential danger is that institutional repositories are cast
> as tools of institutional (administrative) strategies to exercise
> control over what has typically been faculty controlled intellectual
> work. I believe that any institutional repository approach that requires
> deposit of faculty or student works and/or uses the institutional
> repository as a means of asserting control or ownership over these works
> will likely fail, and probably deserves to fail... This is not to say
> that policies mandating the deposit of materials that are broadly
> recognized as part of the institutional record ... are inappropriate.

I agree completely. The purpose of institutional archives and
archive-filling policies is not to assert control or ownership over
faculty research output! It is to maximize its research impact by
maximizing user access to it.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm
http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi

Mixing up the open-access agenda with other university dreams about
generating new revenue streams from faculty intellectual output (software,
patents, courseware, distance education, electronic publishing) is not
only wrong-headed, but it risks delaying the real and sizeable benefits
of open access to refereed research output, turning the institutional
repository movement into aimless gridlock for some time to come.

> My second concern is... [that] administrators, librarians, and faculty
> members wishing to challenge existing systems of scholarly publishing
> (specifically their economic models and their creation of barriers to
> access through intellectual property control and licensing arrangements)
> may try to link their efforts too directly to institutional repositories
> by imposing inappropriate policy constraints 

I agree. See above. And here is a model for an appropriate policy:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html

> it dramatically underestimates the importance of institutional
> repositories to characterize them as instruments for restructuring the
> current economics of scholarly publishing

I agree again. It is not the business of universities to restructure the
economics of scholarly publishing. It is the business of universities to
do research, publish their findings, and make sure that those findings are
put to full use. Maximizing all would-be users' access to them is the
way to ensure the latter. And that might (but just might) eventually
have some effects on the economics of refereed journal publication. But
that would only be a side-effect, not the direct motivation or
justification at all: That direct motivation and justification is
to maximize the impact of institutional research output by making it
open-access -- by self-archiving it in the institutional repository.

> the institutional repository isn't a journal, or a collection of
> journals, and should not be managed like one. That's not the point or
> the purpose of an institutional repository.

Correct. It is an open-access supplement to toll-access via the journals.

> Institutional repositories are not a challenge or alternative to
> disciplinary repositories; rather, they complement them, just as they
> can complement existing venues of scholarly publication.

In the era of OAI, institutional and disciplinary archives are equivalent,
because completely interoperable. However, the shared interest of
researchers and their institutions in maximizing the impact of their
research output makes institutional archives a better bet for hastening
open access, especially as they are in a position to modify their
existing publish/perish policies so as to mandate self-archiving in
order to maximize research impact.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0293.html

> It is desirable to make this as simple as possible... with a simple and
> stable submission interface to the institutional repository. 

The simple solution is available already: See the 60+ Eprints.org
institutional archives http://software.eprints.org/#ep2
in use for over 2 years and growing:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim.ppt

The challenging part is not creating the free self-archiving software,
nor in making it simple, nor in getting it adopted, but in getting
the archives filled, which requires a clear, coherent institutional
self-archiving policy -- with a clear sense of *what* needs to be
self-archived, *how* and *why*:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html

> It's vital that institutions recognize institutional repositories as a
> serious and long-lasting commitment to the campus community (and to the
> scholarly world, and the public at large) 

Yes, but *far* more important than this advance long-lasting commitment
to an empty archive is a coherent policy for getting it filled!

> An institutional repository can fail over time for many reasons: policy
> (for example, the institution chooses to stop funding it), management
> failure or incompetence, or technical problems. Any of these failures
> can result in the disruption of access...I worry a great deal about what
> the various impacts and implications of the first few major failures of
> institutional repositories

And I worry a great deal about worries about the permanence of empty
or even non-existent archives, instead of directing all energies and
resourcefulness to filling the archives! Get the precious intellectual
eggs into the basket, and their very presence there will be the best
guarantor that they will be maintained in perpetuum. Worry instead
about permanence now and all you do is add another item to the
long list of needless worries that are holding back self-archiving:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#1.Preservation

And this is also the point to remind ourselves, again, that
self-archiving is a *supplement* to, not a *substitute* for journal
publication. Until and unless there is a transition and downsizing 
from toll-access journal publication to open-access journal publication,
the primary preservation burden is not on the institutional archives!
Their burden is merely to provide open-access to it, now, as a supplement
for those who cannot afford toll-access.

So stop worrying about archives failing and work instead on archives
filling!

> Not every higher education institution will need or want to run an
> institutional repository, though I think ultimately almost every such
> institution will want to offer some institutional repository services to
> its community. We will see various forms of consortial or cluster
> institutional repositories. 

Maybe. But it seems to me that this is only a substantive question if we
are talking about the industrial strength archive software such as
DSpace. For the "light" softwares such as Eprints, there is so little
start-up time and maintenance required that I would think any
institution that generated research output could and would run its own.
(Again, there is not enough *content* yet to talk about fancy consortial
schemes! Let's get the culture of self-archiving rolling before we worry
about the load being to great for an institution to manage on its own!)

> Federation of institutional repositories may also subsume the
> development of arrangements that recognize and facilitate faculty
> mobility and cross-institutional collaborations.

This can be managed at the metadata level without any special need to
"federate" (over and above OAI-interoperability). A metadata tag
indicating current institutions, and tags indicating prior institutions
and dates will allow all research to be triangulated upon (for where it
was done, and when).

> The MIT [free repository] software is not the only option available,
> although I believe it is the most general-purpose; for example, there
> is [free repository] software from the University of Southampton in
> the U.K. <http:// www.eprints.org/> designed more specifically for
> institutional or disciplinary repositories of papers, as opposed to
> arbitrary digital materials.

And I have here tried to give the reasons why the pressing challenge now
is not general-purpose archiving of arbitrary digital materials, but
the self-archiving of institutional refereed research output, to
maximize its research impact by maximizing its visibility and
accessibility, through open access.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html

Stevan Harnad

-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 
02):

    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 

See also the Budapest Open Access Initiative:
    http://www.soros.org/openaccess

the BOAI Forum:
    http://www.eprints.org/boaiforum.php/

the Free Online Scholarship Movement:
    http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm

the SPARC position paper on institutional repositories:
    http://www.unites.uqam.ca/src/sante.htm

the OAI site:
    http://www.openarchives.org

and the free OAI institutional archiving software site:
    http://www.eprints.org/



Re: [BOAI] biodefense and self-censorship

From: Reme Melero <rmelero AT iata.csic.es>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:20:25 +0100


Threading: [BOAI] biodefense and self-censorship from Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr
      • This Message

[Note from the moderator:  A general discussion of bioterror and censorship is 
beyond the topic of the BOAI Forum.  The larger discussion is important to 
science and society, and should proceed.  But I hope that we can keep our 
discussion here closely connected to open access issues, for example, the 
possibility that free self-archiving of preprints will defeat the purpose of 
security-driven censorship of postprints.  --Peter Suber.]


A couple of comments:

First of all,  bioterrorism or terrorism existed before 11 September and 
still exist after that. I mean , people should aware of that not only 
because it happened in the States. But, why now this interest and not 
before? Is it not a question of bias?

Misuse? Abuse? Authors and editors do not publish their works with 
those aims, who want to and on purpose look for the means employing any 
tool, I presume.

I do not thing “closing doors” is the solution, especially now, when the 
system is questioning the access and dissemination of science and 
scientific communication in general,  and claiming for open access to 
the scientific publications, it does not seem the best. Question: who is 
going to censure? Who is going to control what and what not to publish? 
Again bias and fraud two issues discussed in any “publishing atmosphere
forum” come up.

This  the opinion of an editor based in Spain.
Reme

R. Melero
Managing Editor
Food Science and Technology International
IATA, CSIC
PO BOX 73 46100 Burjasot, Valencia, Spain
TEl +34 96 390 00 22. Fax 96 363 63 01




Bernard Lang wrote:
> 
> Without comments, you will find below:
> 
> - an editorial from Nature (15 February 2003)
>    Statement on the consideration of biodefence and biosecurity
> 
> - un article de l'AFP en francais sur le meme sujet
>    Science et terrorisme : les revues scientifiques appellent à la 
prudence
> 
> Comments welcome
> Tous commentaires bienvenus
> 
> Bernard

[...]




Re: [BOAI] RE: Open Access in Developing Countries

From: JOATO JOATP <joatp2000 AT yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:13:08 -0800 (PST)



 
 I think your article brings to light the proper path to getting information 
out to DC in a very good way.   I live presently in a country that has a good 
database system commonly called Lanl here.  But all the Developing Countries 
can benefit from their own centralized system themselves.  In the past, till I 
recently became Chief Editor of the Journal of Advanced Propulsion Methods, I 
had done educational websites online to inform and educate people on the 
progress of modern Science.  I have always strived to see that these websites 
were open to all the search engines worldwide for a very strong reason.   I 
believe Science belongs to all the Planet and that the key to progress towards 
world peace and a better Planet in general is seeing that all Countires have an 
equal chance to develope properly and build a decent infrastructure.   One key 
to that structure is Scientific knowledge.  Such a system as you propose for 
DC's in part of the way to make sure that happens.
                                                                  Your's
                                                                   Dr. Paul 
Karl Hoiland



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


[BOAI] biodefense and self-censorship

From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:10:07 +0100


Threading:      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] biodefense and self-censorship from rmelero AT iata.csic.es



Without comments, you will find below:

- an editorial from Nature (15 February 2003)
   Statement on the consideration of biodefence and biosecurity

- un article de l'AFP en francais sur le meme sujet
   Science et terrorisme : les revues scientifiques appellent à la prudence

Comments welcome
Tous commentaires bienvenus

Bernard

==============================================================================
NATURE| 15 FEBRUARY 2003  (advance online publication)

 This article will appear in the 20 February 2003 issue of Nature. The
full citation for it is "Nature 421, 771 (2003);
 advance online publication, 15 February 2003.

 editorials

 Statement on the consideration of biodefence and biosecurity

 As discussed in a Commentary by Tony Fauci on page 787, the threat of
bioterrorism requires active consideration by scientists. On 9 January
2003, the US National Academy of Sciences held a discussion meeting on
the balance between scientific openness and security (see Nature 421,
197; 2003). The next day, a group of editors met to discuss the issues
with specific reference to the scientific publication process. The
following statement has emerged from that meeting. The statement was
conceived in a US context, but the principles discussed will be
considered and followed through by Nature and its related journals in
their international arenas.


 The process of scientific publication, through which new findings
are reviewed for quality and then presented to the rest of the
scientific community and the public, is a vital element in our
national life. New discoveries reported in research papers have helped
improve the human condition in myriad ways: protecting public health,
multiplying agricultural yields, fostering technological development
and economic growth, and enhancing global stability and security.

 But new science, as we know, may sometimes have costs as well as
benefits. The prospect that weapons of mass destruction might find
their way into the hands of terrorists did not suddenly appear on 11
September 2001. A policy focus on nuclear proliferation, no stranger
to the physics community, has been with us for many years. But the
events of 11 September brought a new understanding of the urgency of
dealing with terrorism. And the subsequent harmful use of infectious
agents brought a new set of issues to the life sciences. As a result,
questions have been asked by the scientists themselves and by some
political leaders about the possibility that new information published
in research journals might give aid to those with malevolent ends.

 Journals that dealt especially with microbiology, infectious agents,
public health and plant and agricultural systems faced these issues
earlier than some others, and have attempted to deal with them. The
American Society for Microbiology, in particular, urged the National
Academy of Sciences to take an active role in organizing a meeting of
publishers, scientists, security experts and government officials to
explore the issues and discuss what steps might be taken to resolve
them. In a one-day workshop at the Academy in Washington on 9 January
2003, an open forum was held for that purpose. A day later, a group of
journal editors, augmented by scientist-authors, government officials
and others, held a separate meeting designed to explore possible
approaches.

 What follows reflects some outcomes of that preliminary
discussion. Fundamental is a view, shared by nearly all, that there is
information that, although we cannot now capture it with lists or
definitions, presents enough risk of use by terrorists that it should
not be published. How and by what processes it might be identified
will continue to challenge us, because Ñ as all present acknowledged Ñ
it is also true that open publication brings benefits not only to
public health but also in efforts to combat terrorism.

 The statements

 First: The scientific information published in peer-reviewed research
journals carries special status, and confers unique responsibilities
on editors and authors. We must protect the integrity of the
scientific process by publishing manuscripts of high quality, in
sufficient detail to permit reproducibility. Without independent
verification Ñ a requirement for scientific progress Ñ we can neither
advance biomedical research nor provide the knowledge base for
building strong biodefence systems.

 Second: We recognize that the prospect of bioterrorism has raised
legitimate concerns about the potential abuse of published
information, but also recognize that research in the very same fields
will be critical to society in meeting the challenges of defence. We
are committed to dealing responsibly and effectively with safety and
security issues that may be raised by papers submitted for
publication, and to increasing our capacity to identify such issues as
they arise.

 Third: Scientists and their journals should consider the appropriate
level and design of processes to accomplish effective review of papers
that raise such security issues. Journals in disciplines that have
attracted numbers of such papers have already devised procedures that
might be employed as models in considering process design. Some of us
represent some of those journals; others among us are committed to the
timely implementation of such processes, about which we will notify
our readers and authors.

 Fourth: We recognize that on occasions an editor may conclude that
the potential harm of publication outweighs the potential societal
benefits. Under such circumstances, the paper should be modified, or
not be published. Scientific information is also communicated by
other means: seminars, meetings, electronic posting, etc. Journals and
scientific societies can play an important role in encouraging
investigators to communicate results of research in ways that maximize
public benefits and minimize risks of misuse.

   JOURNAL EDITORS AND AUTHORS GROUP:
 Ronald Atlas, President, American Society for Microbiology (ASM), and
Editor, CRC Critical Reviews in Microbiology
 Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature
 Nicholas R. Cozzarelli, Editor, Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences
 Greg Curfman, Deputy Editor, New England Journal of Medicine
 Lynn Enquist, Editor, Journal of Virology Gerald Fink, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology
 Annette Flanagin, Managing Senior Editor, Journal of the American
Medical Association, and President, Council of Science Editors
 Jacqueline Fletcher, President, American Phytopathological Society
 Elizabeth George, Program Manager, National Nuclear Security
Administration, Department of Energy
 Gordon Hammes, Editor, Biochemistry
 David Heyman, Senior Fellow and Director of Science and Security
Initiatives, Center for Strategic and International Studies
 Thomas Inglesby, Editor, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism
 Samuel Kaplan, Chair, ASM Publications Board Donald Kennedy, Editor, Science
 Judith Krug, Director, Office for Intellectual Freedom, American
Library Association
 Rachel Levinson, Assistant Director for Life Sciences, Office of
Science and Technology Policy
 Emilie Marcus, Editor, Neuron
 Henry Metzger, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal
and Skin Diseases, National Institutes of Health
 Stephen S. Morse, Columbia University
 Alison O'Brien, Editor, Infection and Immunity
 Andrew Onderdonk, Editor, Journal of Clinical Microbiology
 George Poste, Chief Executive Officer, Health Technology Networks
 Beatrice Renault, Editor, Nature Medicine
 Robert Rich, Editor, Journal of Immunology
 Ariella Rosengard, University of Pennsylvania
 Steven Salzburg, The Institute for Genome Research
 Mary Scanlan, Director, Publishing Operations, American Chemical Society
 Thomas Shenk, President-Elect, ASM, and Past Editor, Journal of Virology
 Herbert Tabor, Editor, Journal of Biological Chemistry
 Harold Varmus
 Eckard Wimmer, State University of New York at Stony Brook
 Keith Yamamoto, Editor, Molecular Biology of the Cell


==============================================================================


Science et terrorisme : les revues scientifiques appellent à la prudence
    par Pascal BAROLLIER

    DENVER (Etats-Unis), 15 fév (AFP) - Les directeurs des principales
revues scientifiques mondiales ont appelé samedi à la prudence et à la
vigilance quant à la publication d'études potentiellement exploitables
par des terroristes pour la mise au point d'armes chimiques ou
bactériologiques.
    Ces responsables de grandes revues, plutôt que de se voir soumis à
une réglementation gouvernementale limitant leurs libertés, ont appelé
les scientifiques à une «auto-discipline», dans le choix des études
publiées et les détails fournis dans ces publications.
    Comment peut-on définir la «science dangereuse»? s'interrogent les
scientifiques en estimant que le risque est difficile à cerner.
    Néanmoins «tous les travaux qui pourraient être utilisés par des
terroristes dans des buts néfastes ne doivent pas être publiés»,
écrivent les chercheurs dont le communiqué conjoint a été présenté
samedi par Ron Atlas, président de la Société américaine de
microbiologie.
    Pour ce faire, estiment les responsables scientifiques,
«chercheurs et revues devraient considérer la mise en place d'un
processus pour l'examen des travaux à risque, et si le risque
potentiel est supérieur aux bénéfices, les directeurs de publication
devraient modifier les articles ou refuser de les publier».
    Les signataires du texte soulignent cependant que les revues
doivent «protéger l'intégrité du processus scientifique en publiant
des travaux de haut niveau, avec suffisamment de détails pour
permettre (à ces travaux) d'être reproduits».
    Sans la possibilité d'une vérification indépendante des résultats
exposés, ont-ils insisté, «nous ne pouvons ni faire avancer la
recherche biomédicale, ni fournir les connaissances pour construire
des systèmes de défense biologique forts».
    Ce communiqué conjoint a été publié à Denver (Colorado, ouest)
lors de la réunion annuelle de l'Association américaine pour les
progrès de la science (AAAS).
    Il doit être reproduit la semaine prochaine par les revues
scientifiques signataires, parmi lesquelles les Comptes rendus de
l'Académie nationale des sciences (PNAS) américaines, les revues
britannique Nature et américaine Science.
    Cette prise de position résulte d'une réunion entre les principaux
éditeurs de revue scientifique organisée les 9 et 10 janvier à
Washington sous l'égide de l'Académie nationale des sciences et du
Centre pour la sécurité et les études internationales (CSIS), à la
demande de la Société américaine de microbiologie qui s'inquiétait
d'une volonté du gouvernement américain de réglementer les
publications scientifiques dites «sensibles».
    «Il reste vrai que la publication ouverte bénéficie non seulement
à la santé publique mais aussi aux efforts de lutte contre le
terrorisme», ont souligné les auteurs du texte.
    Dans un éditorial qui accompagnera sa publication dans la revue
Science, son directeur Donald Kennedy rappelle que les tensions entre
communauté scientifique et responsables de la sécurité ne sont pas
nouvelles. Elles «ont émergé d'une façon très problématique au début
des années 80» quand des réglementations pour empêcher le transfert de
technologies vers les pays communistes ont été appliquées à la
recherche fondamentale.
    Tout en constatant «le gouffre entre les communautés scientifiques
et responsables de la sécurité» M. Kennedy a appelé «les deux
communautés à se rassembler pour le bien commun».

==============================================================================

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

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


[BOAI] Re: Open Access in Developing Countries

From: ept <ept AT biostrat.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:16:04 +0000


Threading: [BOAI] Open Access in Developing Countries from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

Arun's paper and Stevan's reply are important. And Stevan's 
'self-archive unto others as ye would have them self-archive unto you' 
is key, because the N to S, S to S and S to N gaps are all positively 
affected by the establishment and filling of eprint servers around the 
world. By doing this low-cost activity, DC researchers and publishers 
will see that OA has multi-directional benefits.

I think the DC's can lead the development because their need is the 
greatest. But what is not stopping this happening is the lack of 
awareness. Few DC institutes know about the OA movement. They cannot set 
up OA archives if they don't know what these are, what benefits they 
bring or how to do it. So Arun is right to say the development of OA in 
DCs will be slow unless someone will fund global/regional 
'awareness-raising programmes'. In the meantime, we can write articles 
and distribute them widely; we can make presentations, make good 
websites, get involved in training programmes..... Following the 
ICSTI/INIST/INSERM meeting in Paris I became aware of a number of 
programmes underway on ICT and information literacy. They were 
interested in helping inform about OA....

We have an EPT Trustees' meeting on March 14th in London, and I am 
planning a draft, very short 'e-leaflet' for discussion. When we have 
revised this it could be distributed globally via all our many separate 
contacts. It could be a kind of short FAQ aimed at DCs, answering the 
key questions and leading interested organisations to the best possible 
resources and support.

Arun is also right to think about centres to act as 'way stations' or 
'staging posts' until such time as the infrastructure reaches all (which 
it surely will - just as electricity did, and see the AfricaOne 
project). This concept has been discussed in the Health Information 
Forum and there is a web site for the development (www.iwsp.org). 
Although I do not think it has yet been funded, the idea seems sound and 
could be mirrored in regions other than sub-Saharan Africa, for which it 
was proposed.

However, I feel organisations that already can set up low cost 
institutional archives, should do so now (as the Indian Academy of 
Science has done), not wait, and so be in a position to help other 
organisations regionally. The journals published in DCs can continue as 
at present and are unlikely to be undermined by OA initiatives (as has 
been shown already to be the case in the developed regions).

An important point to raise in these debates is that in 
AIDS/malaria/tuberculosis/emerging new diseases/environmental 
programmes/conservation etc - where the global picture is paramount - 
the information from the DCs is missing and critical for the 
establishment of effective international programmes. So setting up 
eprint servers in DCs greatly benefits the developed world too, and this 
argument may register favourably.

Barbara



Stevan Harnad wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:
> 
> 
>>Friends:
>>
>>Here is a draft report on communication flow and information access in
>>science in developing countries. I will be grateful for your valuable
>>comments and criticism. There are two attachments: the text and the 
tables.
>>Regards.
>>
>>Arun
>>[Subbiah Arunachalam]
>>
> 
> Dear Arun,
> 
> I've read your article and it seems to give an excellent summary of all
> the factors involved in the three problems at hand:
> 
>     (1) The DC (developing countries) *access* to (incoming) non-DC
>     (and DC) research literature
> 
>     (2) The *visibility/impact* of (outgoing) DC research literature
> 
>     (3) The technology gap (the problem of access to modern networked
>     computer resources in DC)
> 
> I cannot add anything about (3), though I have the feeling that
> significant progress in (1) and (2) would help drive (3) -- though
> clearly some headway on (3) is a prerequisite for being able to benefit
> from (1) and (2).
> 
> I also understand that as (1) (immediate access) is most urgent for DC,
> immediate measures, such as lower-toll-access, are essential now; there
> is not the time to work and wait only for long-term open-access.
> 
> But I think there is no conflict. Let DC do anything and everything they
> can do, now, to get lower tolls and more technology. But, *apart from
> that*, nothing is lost by investing as much time and energy as is
> available into (1), and thereby (2). (1) is open access, and what is in
> the hands of DC researchers whenever and wherever (3) (technology) allows 
it
> is BOAI-1, self-archiving their own research output (either in their own
> institutional Eprint Archives or in Central ones at other institutions)
> and/or BOAI-2, submitting it to open-access journals (BOAI-2) such as
> BioMed Central or PLoS.
> 
> This local piece of self-help, multiplied many times over, in both the DC
> and non-DC, is what will eventually provide the long-term open-access,
> and it will at the same time provide (2): maximal visibility/impact for
> DC research output. (1) comes slowly, collectively, but (2) can be quite
> fast, for each researcher's own output.
> 
> I think this needs to be stressed, in your closing remarks about the
> immediate needs vs. long-term open-access goals.
> 
> We are, after all, trying to create a reciprocal domino open-access 
effect,
> and DC countries can help make it happen, and happen faster:
> "Self-archive unto others as ye would have them self-archive unto 
you."
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html
> 
> Cheers, Stevan
> 
> 
> 
> 





[BOAI] Open Access in Developing Countries

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:55:18 +0000 (GMT)


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Open Access in Developing Countries from ept AT biostrat.demon.co.uk

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:

> Friends:
> 
> Here is a draft report on communication flow and information access in
> science in developing countries. I will be grateful for your valuable
> comments and criticism. There are two attachments: the text and the 
tables.
> Regards.
> 
> Arun
> [Subbiah Arunachalam]

Dear Arun,

I've read your article and it seems to give an excellent summary of all
the factors involved in the three problems at hand:

    (1) The DC (developing countries) *access* to (incoming) non-DC
    (and DC) research literature

    (2) The *visibility/impact* of (outgoing) DC research literature

    (3) The technology gap (the problem of access to modern networked
    computer resources in DC)

I cannot add anything about (3), though I have the feeling that
significant progress in (1) and (2) would help drive (3) -- though
clearly some headway on (3) is a prerequisite for being able to benefit
from (1) and (2).

I also understand that as (1) (immediate access) is most urgent for DC,
immediate measures, such as lower-toll-access, are essential now; there
is not the time to work and wait only for long-term open-access.

But I think there is no conflict. Let DC do anything and everything they
can do, now, to get lower tolls and more technology. But, *apart from
that*, nothing is lost by investing as much time and energy as is
available into (1), and thereby (2). (1) is open access, and what is in
the hands of DC researchers whenever and wherever (3) (technology) allows it
is BOAI-1, self-archiving their own research output (either in their own
institutional Eprint Archives or in Central ones at other institutions)
and/or BOAI-2, submitting it to open-access journals (BOAI-2) such as
BioMed Central or PLoS.

This local piece of self-help, multiplied many times over, in both the DC
and non-DC, is what will eventually provide the long-term open-access,
and it will at the same time provide (2): maximal visibility/impact for
DC research output. (1) comes slowly, collectively, but (2) can be quite
fast, for each researcher's own output.

I think this needs to be stressed, in your closing remarks about the
immediate needs vs. long-term open-access goals.

We are, after all, trying to create a reciprocal domino open-access effect,
and DC countries can help make it happen, and happen faster:
"Self-archive unto others as ye would have them self-archive unto 
you."
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html

Cheers, Stevan



[BOAI] Re: Anniversary of the BOAI, launch of the BOAI Forum

From: "Dr. Shu-Kun Lin" <lin AT mdpi.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 05:31:43 +0100


Threading: [BOAI] Anniversary of the BOAI, launch of the BOAI Forum from peters AT earlham.edu
      • This Message

Dear Peter,

We tried to develop a free software for online publishing
which will be supplied to open access journals to use.
Do you have any idea to get some grant to do this? The first version is
at http://sciforum.ouc.edu.cn/sciforum/.

Shu-Kun Lin
Editor-in-Chief, MOLECULES (http://www.mdpi.org/molecules/)
--
Dr. Shu-Kun Lin
Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI)
Matthaeusstrasse 11, CH-4057 Basel, Switzerland
Tel. +41 79 322 3379
Fax +41 61 302 8918
E-mail: lin AT mdpi.org
http://www.mdpi.org/lin/


[BOAI] Anniversary of the BOAI, launch of the BOAI Forum

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:01:20 -0500


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Anniversary of the BOAI, launch of the BOAI Forum from lin AT mdpi.org

Dear Supporters of the Budapest Open Access Initiative,

The BOAI launched one year ago today, February 14, 2002.  Since then we've 
announced several new BOAI activities and funding programs.  Today we're 
launching the BOAI Forum, which will greatly facilitate our ability to make 
future announcements and to collect the open-access wisdom of the worldwide 
network of BOAI supporters.

Here are some details on the Forum as well as a summary of our first year's 
activity.

-----

(1) The BOAI Forum

We're very pleased to announce the launch of this Forum.  We'll use it to 
spread BOAI news quickly and efficiently to those who most care to hear 
about it.  For example, we'll use it to announce new BOAI funding programs 
and publications.  We hope you'll use it to share news, details, and tips 
about your own open-access projects.  Over time this will allow us to 
collect the hard-won experience of our subscribers in advancing the cause 
of open-access research literature in all fields of science and scholarship.

To protect you against unwanted email, we did *not* automatically subscribe 
you or other signatories to the new Forum.  To subscribe to the forum, 
simply fill in your email address on this page, 
<http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f>.  If you want to 
unsubscribe later, just use the same form.

We expect this to be a low-traffic list, perhaps after an initial flurry of 
contributions.

Subscriptions will be limited to those who have signed the BOAI public 
statement.  We'll soon have an archive of past postings which will be 
readable by non-subscribers.

In the future we'll send BOAI announcements to the Forum subscribers, not 
to the BOAI signatories.  So to stay up to date with the initiative you 
once supported with your signature, please subscribe to the Forum.

-----

(2) How can you celebrate the birthday of the BOAI?

* Subscribe to the BOAI Forum.  (Remember that it's not automatic.)
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f

* Spread the word about the BOAI.  Ask your colleagues and institution to sign.

* Talk to colleagues about the open-access projects, or impediments, in 
your institution or discipline.  Write about them.  Applaud the progress, 
identify the obstacles, answer the skeptics, and educate the next 
generation of researchers.

* If you are participating in an open-access project, send the details to 
the BOAI Forum.  If you need advice, ask the knowledgeable subscribers of 
the BOAI Forum.

* If you're not currently participating in an open-access project, consider 
joining or starting one.  Remember that the BOAI is not just a public 
statement, now one year old.  It's a continuing initiative trying to enlist 
the assistance and participation of its signatories and trying to recruit 
new signatories willing to help.  Launch an open-access eprint archive at 
your institution.  Help launch an open-access journal or convert a 
traditional journal.  Archive your own papers, persuade your colleagues to 
do the same, and persuade your institution to adopt a policy to encourage 
it.  If you're looking for other ideas, look at the BOAI list of ways to 
advance the cause.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/help.shtml

-----

(3) Projects supported by the Open Society Institute's Open Access Program 
in Year One

As you know, the Open Society Institute has allocated $3 million to support 
specific BOAI-related projects.  Here's a quick review of some of the 
projects receiving funds in the first year of the initiative.

1.  Development of open access business guides.  The SPARC Consulting Group 
has developed a Guide to Business Planning for Converting a 
Subscription-based Journal to Open Access, and a Guide to Business Planning 
for Launching a New Open Access Journal.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/oajguides/index.shtml
For additional details, please see the recent press release:
http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=f67

2.  Directory of open access journals will be produced and maintained by 
the Lund University Library.
http://www.lub.lu.se/lucep/activities/doaj/index.html
For additional details, please see today's press release:
http://www.doaj.org/documents/press-release_030214_en.html

3.  Pilot project to support authors from the OSI region to publish 
articles in open access journals.  40 open access journals are taking part 
in the pilot support scheme.  The program will be continued in 2003.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/grants.shtml#journals

4.  Pilot project to support BioMed Central (BMC) Institutional 
Memberships, which will allow authors from institutions to publish articles 
in BMC free of charge. Institutions within the OSI region can apply to OSI 
for support.  A total of 50 grants to institutions will be made through 
this program.  12 institutions already received grants in 2002.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/grants.shtml#biomed

5.  Workshop to discuss open access journals with learned society 
publishers.  OSI sponsored a workshop for the members of the UK-based 
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) in 
September 2002.
http://www.alpsp.org/s130902.htm

6.  Conference of the Academies of Sciences to introduce the benefits of 
open access publishing.  The conference was held in Budapest from 16-18 
January, 2003.  24 Academies from the former Soviet Union, Central and 
Eastern Europe, and China participated.
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/meeting.shtml

7.  Support speakers and selected participants to attend international 
conferences to spread awareness of the benefits of open access.  OSI has 
supported the attendance of speakers at various international conferences 
including:  the 2nd Workshop on the Open Archives Initiative, held at CERN 
(http://library.cern.ch/Announcement.htm); and the First Nordic Conference 
on Scholarly Communications (http://www.lub.lu.se/ncsc2002/).

8.  Development of the Academic Contributor Information System (ACIS), 
which will create a relational dataset between authors and their 
publications and institutions.  This information will assist in building 
awareness of the benefits of institutional repositories.  OSI is 
collaborating with the Palmer School of Library and Information Science at 
Long Island University on this project.
http://acis.openlib.org/

9.  Free Online Scholarship newsletter, written by Peter Suber, was 
supported from October 2001-August 2002.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm

10.  User's manual for Eprints2, an Open Archives Initiative compliant 
software, will be developed.  The manual will assist in the development of 
institutional repositories.

      I hope to hear from you through the BOAI Forum.
      Best wishes,

      Peter Suber
      Moderator, BOAI Forum



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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .