Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: TWAS and open access

From: Barbara Kirsop <barbara AT biostrat.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:40:27 +0100


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] TWAS and open access from arun AT mssrf.res.in


  Thanks, Arun, for your paper and letter to TWAS. Does anyone know what 
liklihood there is of OA being raised at the forthcoming  WSIS meeting? 
I am out of touch with UK discussions and proposals and although I 
proposed an OA resolution at a British Council meeting last year I am 
unsure if this has been taken up. Maybe colleagues you have written to 
could chase this with their national committees.

Attached for your information is a recent position statement on OA from 
the Wellcome Trust.

Barbara
Electronic Publishing Trust for Development

Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:

> Dear friends:
>
> Here is a letter I am sending to many Fellows of the Third World 
> Academy of Sciences on the need for them to support institutional self 
> archiving and open access. TWAS is meeting soon in Beijing. Regards.
>
> Arun
> [Subbiah Arunachalam
> -----------
>
> An open letter to Fellows of TWAS
>
> Dear Fellow of TWAS:
>
> Greetings from Chennai, southern India. I am a volunteer with an NGO 
> and I devote half my time to a project on ICT-enabled development and 
> the other half to science in the developing world. The common thread 
> in both of them is improving access to relevant information. The rural 
> poor and the marginalized need information that can benefit them and 
> our project is built around this simple premise. Scientists, as all of 
> us know only too well, also need to access information relevant to 
> their work. However, most scientists in the developing world do not 
> get all the information they need. Journals are expensive. Databases 
> are prohibitively costly. Not all of them have high bandwidth Internet 
> connections. As telecommunication costs are high they rarely use 
> telephones.
>
> The problem is not only with accessing information. Developing country 
> scientists also find it difficult to get their papers read by a wide 
> audience. They lack the much-needed visibility.
>
> Fortunately, thanks to recent advances in information and 
> communication technologies, we have a great opportunity to make the 
> playing field level wherein irrespective where one works one can 
> access information as well as make one's own work widely noticed.
>
> Experts like Stevan Harnad of  Southampton have been advocating 
> institutional self-archiving of all our results prior to publication 
> in professional journals. Physicists amongst us know the value the 
> archivearXiv . Computer scientists know the value of CiteSeer. These 
> are centralized archives. What Harnad advocates is decentralized or 
> distributed archives (or institutional self-archiving).
>
> If every academic and research institution in both developing and 
> developed countries set up such archives and make them interoperable, 
> then the twin problems of access and visibility can be solved to a 
> great extent.
>
> TWAS and like-minded organizations such as IAP, ICSU and Unesco, 
> should work towards setting up such distributed archives. Indeed, the 
> forthcoming WSIS meeting at Geneva provides us a great opportunity to 
> pass a resolution on this subject.
>
> Even if all the world's information is freely available on the Net, it 
> will not be any use if one does not have a decent Internet connection. 
> As Prof. Bruce Alberts said in one of his talk at Geneva, we should 
> launch a massive programme of connecting developing country academic 
> and research institutions to high bandwidth Internet, even if it means 
> heavy subsidy. TWAS may try to persuade international (mulrilateral 
> and bilateral) organizations and philanthropic foundations to 
> underwrite such a programme. The forthcoming TWAS meeting in Beijing, 
> I am sure, will consider these issues.
>
> I have pleasure in attaching my recent paper where I have articulated 
> my views.
> Regards.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Subbiah Arunachalam
> <arun AT mssrf.res.in>
> 30 September 2003
>
>
> <<INT inform.doc>>
>
>



ATTACHMENT: message.html!

ATTACHMENT: Wellcome Trust position statment on OAi.doc!


[BOAI] TWAS and open access

From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun AT mssrf.res.in>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:22:27 +0530


Threading: [BOAI] Re: TWAS and open access from barbara AT biostrat.demon.co.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access from peters AT earlham.edu


Dear friends:

Here is a letter I am sending to many Fellows of the Third World Academy of
Sciences on the need for them to support institutional self archiving and
open access. TWAS is meeting soon in Beijing. Regards.

Arun
[Subbiah Arunachalam
-----------

An open letter to Fellows of TWAS

Dear Fellow of TWAS:

Greetings from Chennai, southern India. I am a volunteer with an NGO and I
devote half my time to a project on ICT-enabled development and the other
half to science in the developing world. The common thread in both of them
is improving access to relevant information. The rural poor and the
marginalized need information that can benefit them and our project is built
around this simple premise. Scientists, as all of us know only too well,
also need to access information relevant to their work. However, most
scientists in the developing world do not get all the information they need.
Journals are expensive. Databases are prohibitively costly. Not all of them
have high bandwidth Internet connections. As telecommunication costs are
high they rarely use telephones. 
The problem is not only with accessing information. Developing country
scientists also find it difficult to get their papers read by a wide
audience. They lack the much-needed visibility.
Fortunately, thanks to recent advances in information and communication
technologies, we have a great opportunity to make the playing field level
wherein irrespective where one works one can access information as well as
make one's own work widely noticed. 
Experts like Stevan Harnad of  Southampton have been advocating
institutional self-archiving of all our results prior to publication in
professional journals. Physicists amongst us know the value the archive
arXiv. Computer scientists know the value of CiteSeer. These are centralized
archives. What Harnad advocates is decentralized or distributed archives (or
institutional self-archiving). 
If every academic and research institution in both developing and developed
countries set up such archives and make them interoperable, then the twin
problems of access and visibility can be solved to a great extent. 
TWAS and like-minded organizations such as IAP, ICSU and Unesco, should work
towards setting up such distributed archives. Indeed, the forthcoming WSIS
meeting at Geneva provides us a great opportunity to pass a resolution on
this subject. 
Even if all the world's information is freely available on the Net, it will
not be any use if one does not have a decent Internet connection. As Prof.
Bruce Alberts said in one of his talk at Geneva, we should launch a massive
programme of connecting developing country academic and research
institutions to high bandwidth Internet, even if it means heavy subsidy.
TWAS may try to persuade international (mulrilateral and bilateral)
organizations and philanthropic foundations to underwrite such a programme.
The forthcoming TWAS meeting in Beijing, I am sure, will consider these
issues.
I have pleasure in attaching my recent paper where I have articulated my
views. 
Regards.

Sincerely,

Subbiah Arunachalam
<arun AT mssrf.res.in>
30 September 2003


 <<INT inform.doc>> 



ATTACHMENT: message.html!

ATTACHMENT: INT inform.doc!


[BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 09:40:11 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] TWAS and open access from arun AT mssrf.res.in
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

At 01:25 PM 10/1/2003 +0100, Barbara Kirsop wrote:

>  Thanks, Arun, for your paper and letter to TWAS. Does anyone know what
>liklihood there is of OA being raised at the forthcoming  WSIS meeting?
>I am out of touch with UK discussions and proposals and although I
>proposed an OA resolution at a British Council meeting last year I am
>unsure if this has been taken up. Maybe colleagues you have written to
>could chase this with their national committees.
>
>Attached for your information is a recent position statement on OA from
>the Wellcome Trust. [See separate posting on "Wellcome Trust statement
>on open access" https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/ ]
>
>Barbara
>Electronic Publishing Trust for Development

Barbara,
      Yes, open access will come up at the WSIS.  The WSIS Scientific 
Information Working Group has been pushing for a good statement on open 
access.  But as you can imagine, there are many countervailing forces that 
tend to dilute good statements.  The working group chair, Francis Muguet, 
is on the ground in Geneva doing an admirable job resisting these forces as 
far as possible.  (I'm on the steering committee for the working group but 
have only participated electronically.)  For more details, see the working 
group page, <http://www.wsis-si.org/si-frame.html>.

      Peter




----------
Peter Suber
Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College
Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge
Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter
Editor, Open Access News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/
peter.suber AT earlham.edu


ATTACHMENT: message.html!


RE: [BOAI] Re: TWAS and open access

From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun AT mssrf.res.in>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:55:36 +0530


Thanks Barbara. I am trying my best to persuade many groups to raise the
issue of the information needs of developing country scientists. Regards.
 
Arun

-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Kirsop [mailto:barbara AT biostrat.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 5:10 PM
To: Subbiah Arunachalam
Cc: xuelan AT mail.tsinghua.edu.cn; wuyishan AT istic.ac.cn;
chan AT utsc.utoronto.ca; mustapha AT icsu.org; judy.ugonna AT 
britishcouncil.org;
margaret.ling AT geo2.poptel.org.uk; douya AT icipe.org; janethussein AT 
bigpond.com;
vcanhos AT biostrat.demon.co.uk; vcano AT qmuc.ac.uk; peter.singer AT 
utoronto.ca;
boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk; peters AT earlham.edu; peush_sahni AT 
hotmail.com;
vijaya AT mcbl.iisc.ernet.in; september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org;
harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: [BOAI] Re: TWAS and open access


Thanks, Arun, for your paper and letter to TWAS. Does anyone know what
liklihood there is of OA being raised at the forthcoming  WSIS meeting? I am
out of touch with UK discussions and proposals and although I proposed an OA
resolution at a British Council meeting last year I am unsure if this has
been taken up. Maybe colleagues you have written to could chase this with
their national committees.

Attached for your information is a recent position statement on OA from the
Wellcome Trust.

Barbara
Electronic Publishing Trust for Development

Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:


Dear friends:

Here is a letter I am sending to many Fellows of the Third World Academy of
Sciences on the need for them to support institutional self archiving and
open access. TWAS is meeting soon in Beijing. Regards.

Arun
[Subbiah Arunachalam
-----------

An open letter to Fellows of TWAS

Dear Fellow of TWAS:

Greetings from Chennai, southern India. I am a volunteer with an NGO and I
devote half my time to a project on ICT-enabled development and the other
half to science in the developing world. The common thread in both of them
is improving access to relevant information. The rural poor and the
marginalized need information that can benefit them and our project is built
around this simple premise. Scientists, as all of us know only too well,
also need to access information relevant to their work. However, most
scientists in the developing world do not get all the information they need.
Journals are expensive. Databases are prohibitively costly. Not all of them
have high bandwidth Internet connections. As telecommunication costs are
high they rarely use telephones. 

The problem is not only with accessing information. Developing country
scientists also find it difficult to get their papers read by a wide
audience. They lack the much-needed visibility.

Fortunately, thanks to recent advances in information and communication
technologies, we have a great opportunity to make the playing field level
wherein irrespective where one works one can access information as well as
make one's own work widely noticed. 

Experts like Stevan Harnad of  Southampton have been advocating
institutional self-archiving of all our results prior to publication in
professional journals. Physicists amongst us know the value the archivearXiv
. Computer scientists know the value of CiteSeer. These are centralized
archives. What Harnad advocates is decentralized or distributed archives (or
institutional self-archiving). 

If every academic and research institution in both developing and developed
countries set up such archives and make them interoperable, then the twin
problems of access and visibility can be solved to a great extent. 

TWAS and like-minded organizations such as IAP, ICSU and Unesco, should work
towards setting up such distributed archives. Indeed, the forthcoming WSIS
meeting at Geneva provides us a great opportunity to pass a resolution on
this subject. 

Even if all the world's information is freely available on the Net, it will
not be any use if one does not have a decent Internet connection. As Prof.
Bruce Alberts said in one of his talk at Geneva, we should launch a massive
programme of connecting developing country academic and research
institutions to high bandwidth Internet, even if it means heavy subsidy.
TWAS may try to persuade international (mulrilateral and bilateral)
organizations and philanthropic foundations to underwrite such a programme.
The forthcoming TWAS meeting in Beijing, I am sure, will consider these
issues.

I have pleasure in attaching my recent paper where I have articulated my
views. 
Regards.

Sincerely,

Subbiah Arunachalam
 <mailto:arun AT mssrf.res.in> <arun AT mssrf.res.in> 
30 September 2003


<<INT inform.doc>> 





ATTACHMENT: message.html!


RE: [BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access

From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun AT mssrf.res.in>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 20:16:21 +0530


Threading:      • This Message
             RE: [BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access from arun AT mssrf.res.in

I suggest that champions of open access and self-archiving and groups such
as BOAI-Forum, September 1998 American Scientist Forum and the SPARC - OA
Forum write to (1) Mr Kofi Annan, (2) Presidents of the leading scientific
Academies and societies of the world, (3) key organizations managing WSIS
about the need to pass a resolution on OA and to enunciate a clear
implementable strategy. Regards.
 
Arun

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Suber [mailto:peters AT earlham.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 7:10 PM
To: September 1998 American Scientist Forum
Cc: boai-forum AT ecs.soton.ac.uk; SPARC-OAForum AT arl.org
Subject: [BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access


At 01:25 PM 10/1/2003 +0100, Barbara Kirsop wrote:



 Thanks, Arun, for your paper and letter to TWAS. Does anyone know what
liklihood there is of OA being raised at the forthcoming  WSIS meeting?
I am out of touch with UK discussions and proposals and although I
proposed an OA resolution at a British Council meeting last year I am
unsure if this has been taken up. Maybe colleagues you have written to
could chase this with their national committees.

Attached for your information is a recent position statement on OA from
the Wellcome Trust. [See separate posting on "Wellcome Trust statement
on open access" https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/
<https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/>  ]

Barbara
Electronic Publishing Trust for Development


Barbara,
     Yes, open access will come up at the WSIS.  The WSIS Scientific
Information Working Group has been pushing for a good statement on open
access.  But as you can imagine, there are many countervailing forces that
tend to dilute good statements.  The working group chair, Francis Muguet, is
on the ground in Geneva doing an admirable job resisting these forces as far
as possible.  (I'm on the steering committee for the working group but have
only participated electronically.)  For more details, see the working group
page, < http://www.wsis-si.org/si-frame.html
<http://www.wsis-si.org/si-frame.html> >.

     Peter




  _____  

Peter Suber
Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College
Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge
Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter
Editor, Open Access News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/> 
peter.suber AT earlham.edu




ATTACHMENT: message.html!


[BOAI] October issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 13:42:23 -0400


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] October issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter from peters AT earlham.edu


* Sorry for cross-posting *

I just mailed the October issue of the SPARC Open Access Newsletter.  It 
has a piece on the Wellcome Trust commitment to open access, how and why to 
distinguish open access from "Napster for science", the 
reauthorization of 
ERIC, upcoming OA-related events in October, and the usual round-up of news 
and bibliography from the past month.

October issue
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OANews/Message/98.html

Subscription info, forum, and archive
http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html

      Peter




----------
Peter Suber
Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College
Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge
Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter
Editor, Open Access News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/
peter.suber AT earlham.edu


ATTACHMENT: message.html!


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

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 18:26:15 +0100 (BST)


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

There will be an Open Access conference October 20-22 in Berlin. Below
is a URL for the conference, followed by the abstract of my own paper
(to be given in session 4.3):

        OPEN ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE IN THE SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
    (organized by the Max Planck Society in association with ECHO)
        http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin1.htm
        http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/index.htm
                October 20 - 22, 2003, Berlin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My own paper will be entitled:

    On the Need to Support Both Open-Access Strategies:
    Open-Access Publishing (P) and Open-Access Self-Archiving (S)

    Stevan Harnad

    ABSTRACT: It has taken a very long time for the research community
    to at last awaken to the importance of, the need for, and the
    attainability of toll-free online access to the full text of all
    peer-reviewed research articles for all researchers ("open
    access"). There are two roads to open access: (P) Open-Access
    Publishing and (S) Open-Access Self-Archiving. It would be a great
    pity, and a great loss for open-access and research impact, if
    today's long-overdue open-access initiatives were now to be focused
    exclusively, or even primarily, on Open-Access Publishing (P), which
    may be the easier concept to understand, but is the slower, more
    indirect and more uncertain of the two means of attaining open access
    today. Open-access publishing requires 3 steps:

        (P1) creating or converting 23,500 open-access journals (there
        are only 500 open-access journals today, and 23,500 toll-access
        journals),

        (P2) finding a means of covering open-access publication costs
        (varying from <$500 to >$1500 per article), and

        (P3) persuading the authors of each of the 2,500,000 refereed
        research articles published annually to publish them in these
        23,500 new open-access journals instead of in the 23,500
        established toll-access journals.

    Open-access self-archiving requires only  one step:

        (S1) persuading the authors of each of the annual 2,500,000
        refereed research articles to self-archive them in addition to
        publishing them in the established 23,500 toll-access journals.

    As 55% of the established journals already support self-archiving
    (and many more will agree if asked), 

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

    and as at least three times as many articles are open-access today
    because their authors have self-archived them than because they
    have been published in an open-access journal, 

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt

    it is undeniable that self-archiving is the faster, more direct,
    and more certain of the two means of attaining open-access
    today. Moreover, self-archiving is probably also the single most
    powerful means of hastening us all toward the era of universal
    open-access publishing! The optimal joint open-access strategy that
    the Berlin Declaration should accordingly support and promote is
    that all researchers should: 

        (P) publish in an open-access journal today wherever a suitable
        open-access journal is available today;

        and

        (S) wherever a suitable open-access journal is not available
        today, publish in a toll-access journal but also self-archive
        the article in your institutional open-access archive today.

    Fully support both open-access publishing (P) and open-access
    self-archiving (S).

Harnad, S. (2003) Electronic Preprints and Postprints. Encyclopedia of
Library and Information Science Marcel Dekker, Inc.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/eprints.htm 

Harnad, S. (2003) Online Archives for Peer-Reviewed Journal
Publications. International Encyclopedia of Library and Information
Science. John Feather & Paul Sturges (eds). Routledge. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archives.htm 

Harnad, S. (2003) Self-Archive Unto Others as Ye Would Have Them
Self-Archive Unto You. 
The Australian Higher Education Supplement. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html

Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online
RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: 
Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper
and easier. Ariadne.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm

Harnad, S. (2003) Maximising Research Impact Through Self-Archiving.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stevan Harnad
Chaire de Recherche du Canada
Centre de Neuroscience de la Cognition (CNC)
Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Montreal, Quebec,  Canada  H3C 3P8
tel: 1-514-987-3000 2461#
fax: 1-514-987-8952
harnad AT uqam.ca
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/





[BOAI] Two November open-access seminars (Ottawa & Oslo)

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 18:56:35 +0100 (BST)


Here are two more open-access seminars in November (in Ottawa and Oslo)
in addition to the October seminars (in Berlin and London) announced
previously:

    Colloque. Association pour l'avancement des sciences et des techniques
    de la documentation. 15:45-16:45, Ottawa, vendredi 7 novembre 2003.
    http://www.asted.org/congres/

    Open Access Seminar, National Committee of University and
    Research Libraries, Norwegian Council of Higher Education.
    Discussions with stake-holders in national research policy
    making and budgeting. 11-12 November 2003, Oslo, Norway.
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/oslo.htm


[BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:35:59 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access from peters AT earlham.edu
      • This Message

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:

> We should ask ourselves why in areas other than physics and computer
> science (where arXiv and CiteSeer are so very successful) scientists of
> the world are reluctant to set up open [access] archives. WSIS, Geneva,
> provides all of us a great opportunity to push the idea of open access
> to ALL S&T literature and get international support.

First, my gratitude (and that of many others) for your untiring work
on behalf of open access in the developing world. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3028.html

Your question is a very valid and timely one. (Although self-archiving
in other fields is not quite as sluggish as you fear, the self-archiving
rate in all fields, however, is still far, far too low:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt  ).

So, by way of a candidate reply to the question of why self-archiving
is not growing more quickly, the answer is, I think, simple, and exactly
the same for the developing world and the developed word: It is for
*exactly* the same reason that there would be very little research
published at all if it were not for the carrot/stick of "publish or
perish." If the careers and funding of researchers and the prestige
and overheads of their research institutions were not both formally and
causally contingent on publication, researchers would hardly publish. That
is human nature: they would still do research, but many would not bother
to publish it.

By exactly the same token, having been motivated by the existing
publish-or-perish reward system to publish, researchers will not
bother to maximize the uptake and impact of their research unless the
publish-or-perish mandate is extended to "publish with maximal 
impact."
In other words, it is up to researchers' institutions and their research
funders to *mandate* open access for their peer-reviewed research
publications, at both institutional and national levels, just as they 
mandate publishing itself (and for exactly the same reasons).

Once this is done, formally, self-archiving will quickly climb to the
high rate that has already been reachable in principle for several years
now, but has not yet been taken advantage of, for lack of motivation and
incentive -- and perhaps also for lack of knowledge of the direct causal
connection between research access and research impact.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt

The OAI has provided the all-important interoperability
protocol (http://www.openarchives.org). OAIster and
others have provided the cross-archives search services
(http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/). Romeo
has sorted out the rights issues
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
We at Southampton have provided some of the tools (self-archiving software
http://software.eprints.org/ scientometric imact-measuring
engines http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search and
http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php and standardized
online CV software http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi) plus
policy models for institutional and national open-access and
self-archiving policies and practises
(http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html and
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ and
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ ). And the BOAI
has sounded the clarion-call for open access
(http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ ).

It remains only for institions and research-funders to concertedly adopt
and apply these tools and policies by naturally extending their existing
"publish or perish" policies to "publish with maximized 
impact." That
means officially adopting the dual open-access strategy:

      (1) publish your research in an open-access journal whenever
      a suitable one exists (5%)

      and 

     (2) publish the rest of your research (95%) in a toll-access journal but
     also self archive it in your own institutional Eprint Archives

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt

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: Zeno's Paradox and the Road to the Optimal/Inevitable

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 10:18:38 +0100 (BST)


> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:21:45 +0530 
> From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun AT mssrf.res.in>
> 
> Dear Stevan:
> 
> Here is a senior scientist from Russia with some reservations about self
> archiving and open access. Maybe you would like to convince him. He is a
> Fellow of TWAS. Regards.
> 
> Arun

Dear Arun,

No doubt because of the long years of relative isolation, this Russian
inquiry recapitulates the past 1.5 decade-history of open-access,
raising several of the 28 prima facie worries (all groundless) that have
been answered repeatedly in this Forum and have even turned into
the self-archiving FAQs. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ 

I will reply in summary first and then to each of the 3 questions,
also citing the pertinent FAQ.

> From: [Identity Deleted]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 3:38 PM
> Subject: Re: TWAS, WSIS and open access
> 
> Dear Subbiah Arunachalam,
> 
> I agree with your estimation of situation concerning problems with
> access to journals and ICT. We have a same situation in Russia. Now
> Russia become close to Third World countries.
> 
> I suppose that creating open access archives and journals undermine
> business of publishing companies. And we can expect large resistance.
> I see some problems.

There is certainly some resistance to open access among peer-reviewed
journal publishers, with some publishers worrying that it may undermine
their business. However, what is best for publishers' current
cost-recovery methods and modera operandi must be weighed against
what is best for research and researchers. Open access is so clearly
the optimal and inevitable solution for research and researchers that
no publisher can explicitly oppose open access per se. That would be
tantamount to declaring that publishers were opposed to what was best
for research and researchers. And that position would only be tenable
if access-toll-based cost-recovery were somehow a necessary condition
for publishing peer-reviewed research at all. But that is clearly no
longer the case in the online age.

Most journal publishers accordingly support open access. 500 (out of
the total of the world's 24,000 peer-reviewed journals) do so by being
or becoming open-access journals: http://www.doaj.org/ 
Of the remaining journals, 55% of the Romeo Project's sample of the
top 7135 are already "green," i.e., already explicitly support open
access by supporting the author self-archiving of either preprints or
postprints or both.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

Most of the remaining Romeo "white" journals will agree to
self-archiving if asked. And for the few who do not agree, there
is still a legal solution that allows all authors to self-archive:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1

Moreover, in the fields that have been self-archiving the most and the
longest -- physics and mathematics -- there has not been a single
publisher request to remove any of the 200,000+ articles that have been
self-archived to date (since the inception of the Physics Arxiv,
arxiv.org, in 1991).

The changes induced by self-archiving are gradual enough and distributed
enough so that no one knows whether and when they will ever affect journal
revenue streams. If and when they do, there are ways that journals can
adapt (cost-cutting to eliminate products and services that
become obsolete, such as the paper product, and eventually even
online text-provision, offloading archiving and access onto the
distributed system of OAI-compliant and interoperable institutional
archives themselves). 

The 500 brave new open-access journals have pre-adapted already. The
open-access journal's costs are paid at the author/institution end instead
of the reader/institution end. The open-access journal may eventually
downsize to becoming purely a peer-review service-provider and certifier
rather than the provider of a text-product, whether on-paper or on-line.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0303.html

> 1. Building of communism for scientists in capitalist world demands a
> lot of money. Who will pay?  The communist practice in our country is
> show that people's work must be paid. If people don't get normal
> salary they work very bad. I don't belive in volunteers or enthusiasts
> work.  

Relevant self-faq:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#14.Capitalism

As noted above, the essential costs of publication can be paid on either
the reader/institution end or the author-institution end, so open-access
does not rely on philanthropy or communism! But what *are* the essential
products and services of a peer-reviewed journal in the online age?

Authors provide the text, and do the revisions in response to peer
review. The peer-reviewers referee -- and have always refereed -- for
free. The network of OAI-compliant Institutional Eprint Archives can
provide the access. So it is likely that the true costs of online-age
peer-reviewed journal publication will be much lower, if and when they
are reduced to the essentials by market pressure. For now, however, the
toll-access journals can compete with the existing open-access journals,
and can co-exist with the open-access versions of those of their articles
that are self-archived by their authors (as physics journals have been
doing since 1991).

> There are two operational systems Linux and Windows. Linux and
> soft for Linux are free of charge, but very bad. It's example of
> communism in computer's world. We need many sponsors for maintaining
> of work.

I have no comment on the Windows/Linux comparison (though I think Linux
is very good!). Peer-reviewed research, unlike software, is and always
has been an author give-away, written solely for research impact, not
for royalty revenue.

    "On the Deep Disanalogy Between Text and Software...
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2967.html

> 2. I suppose we have a danger to create bad system. There are a lot of
> scientific "noise". Some journals can be named as basket for 
garbage.
> We can build up a new huge basket.

Relevant self-faq: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#7.Peer

The open-access movement is targeting the peer-reviewed journal
literature. The objective is to free this literature from access-tolls,
not from peer review.

> 3. The serious scientists will publish results in main journals. In
> Russia  we haven't money to pay  journals for publishing papers. 

Relevant self-faq: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#8.Paying

There are two roads to open access: open-access publication (BOAI-2)
and open-access self-archiving (BOAI-1). For the 95% of articles that
either have no suitable open-access journal or the author/institution
cannot afford the open-access journal's publication fee, there is always
the option of self-archiving. Open access is not identical with open
access publication: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml

    "On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html

> This journals are unreachable for most of Russian scientists. Western
> countries built the new Berlin's wall. They create the conditions for
> brain leakage. The most talented scientists must work abroad for low
> salary if compare with native scientists. This situation is very
> profit for government of Western countries. They get ready scientists
> and used them in more productive part of life. It means that  we can
> have resistance from Western governments.

Open access is one of the ways of plugging the brain-drain, helping
to equalize both the access-differential and the impact differential
between the richer and poorer countries.

    "Access-Denial, Impact-Denial and the Developing and Developed 
World"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2171.html

Stevan Harnad

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at
the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 
& 03):

    http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html
                            or
    http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html

Discussion can be posted to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org 



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

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:40:50 +0100 (BST)


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

        Scotomata in the Open Access Movement

A blind spot seems to be growing at the *center* (not the edges)
of the Open-Access-Publishing (OApub) road to Open Access (OA). OApub is a
valid and welcome road to OA, but in the minds of many of its proponents
the idea seems to have grown that OApub *is* OA, and that *only* OApub
is OA.

As a result, because OApub also seems to be a much easier concept
for researchers to understand than Open-Access Self-Archiving (OAarch),
and because this easier concept has now also trickled through to some
research funding bodies, legislators, and even the popular press --
Open Access (OA) itself, despite the superficial signs of its growth
and progress, is now again at risk of being detoured into yet another
decade of needless delay.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt

Part of the problem is that OApub has at least three substantial hurdles
to surmount:

    (OApub-1) OA journals have to be created/converted 
    http://www.doaj.org/

    (OApub-2) Funding sources must be found for paying the author charges
    for publishing in those OA journals (hence the "Bethesda 
Statement"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2878.html ), and

    (OApub-3) Authors must be persuaded to publish in those OA journals
    (hence the Sabo Bill
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html ).

This would all be fine and as it should be were it anywhere near the
truth that OApub was indeed the only, or easiest, or most direct,
or surest road to OA. But none of that is the case! Not only
is there another road, but that other road is easier, more direct,
and surer. It calls for only one step, not three or more, namely:

    (OAarch-1) Authors must be persuaded to self-archive.

The archives are already there (but near-empty) for the making or
taking. At least 55% of publishers already support OAarch, and no further
funding or journal-creation, -conversion, or -renunciation is needed.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt

But if one is strongly committed to OApub as the *only* road to achieve
OA, or the main one, one will not have any inclination to stress the
*other* road to OA, let alone that it is faster, easier, more direct
or surer!

Worse, OAarch may not be just a blind spot for OApub: it may even be
perceived as an obstacle by some OApub advocates: For unless OAarch can
somehow be minimized or dismissed as an unstable, anarchic, impractical,
even *illegal* non-starter, there is a chance that OApub advocates may
have to face the possibility that putting all or even most of the emphasis
on OApub would be premature, and that OAarch, apart from being the surer
road to immediate OA, might even be the surer road to eventual OApub!

I think the dual OA algorithm 

    (1) publish your articles in an open-access journal wherever available
    (<5%) 
and
    (2) self-archive the rest of your articles (>95%) 

captures the true realities and possibilities and probabilities, and in
their true proportions.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt

But OApub leaves OAarch entirely out of its unilateral strategies and
desiderata -- or, worse, OApub portrays OAarch merely as a way to offload
the archiving and access burdens of OApub journals!

I have been on the OA circuit a long time. I have a good sense by now of
the maddeningly slow and slow-witted pace of progress toward OA, and
how Zeno's Paralysis, mutating in a Protean way with every apparent
step forward, keeps conspiring to side-track our progress toward this
long overdue and long accessible goal. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#8

It is accordingly important that all open-eyed open-access advocates
now try to do everything we can to make sure that the 95% solution is
*understood* to be the 95% solution that it is, and is given 95% of the
open-access-seeking community's attention and efforts. The money is not
with us -- I don't have the PLoS's $9 million, nor even the BOAI's 3 --
but fortunately OAarch does not depend on money but only on understanding,
and the action flowing naturally from that understanding.

Now to comments.

> [Re. Butler's article on the authorship row at NEJM]
> https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/157.html
>
>anon>  [The authors] could have published the paper
>anon>  in NEJM and still achieved open access to the paper through
>anon>  self-archiving. One of the great virtues
>anon>  of self-archiving is the way it gives authors the freedom to
>anon>  publish in any journal without sacrificing the benefits of
>anon>  open access. This may be a blind spot.

This is indeed the OApub blind spot, and one immediately thinks of King
Solomon: Do OApub authors seek immediate OA (for their own work and
everyone else's) or are they merely doing public posturing for OApub?

But, as I said, anosognosia dictates that this must remain a blind spot,
for illuminating it would amount to recognizing that it is OAarch and not
OApub that deserves most of our OA efforts right now -- if we want to
maximize the returns on our efforts, in terms of immediate OA.

The rationalization -- in neurology they call it "confabulation" -- 
that
protects this blind spot is that it would be somehow "unstable" or
"short-term" to pursue OAarch full-speed: There would still be a 
long-term
day of reckoning to face in the transition to OApub, so we might as well
face it now.

Well that is precisely the *wrong* reasoning, for it not only needlessly
delays (yet again) immediate OA, even after having at long last awakened
to its merits and desirability, but it is based on the vague and
unexamined (and, I think, incorrect) notion that somehow it will be more
natural or more stable to make a direct transition from toll-access
publishing (TApub) to OApub than to have the transition mediated,
facilitated, indeed *driven* by OAarch, gradually.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1

OApub enthusiasts seem to be focused only on creating new OA journals
(and trying to beg or bully TA journals to convert to OA). That may be
fun. It may be more satisfying than trying to beg or bully researchers
to self-archive -- but it certainly will not bring us OA faster! Rather
the contrary. It is reducing the perceived pressure to self-archive,
researchers resigning themselves instead to waiting, passively, for more
OA journals to be created or converted for them.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html

>anon1>     NEJM at least applied their principles correctly
>anon1>     over the authorship issue.
>
>anon2>  I don't agree that NEJM applied its own principles
>anon2>  correctly -- or perhaps we just disagree on what its principles
>anon2>  were. NEJM made it sound as though its responses were forced
>anon2>  by copyright law. But copyright law does not (1) stop a journal
>anon2>  from permitting open access or (2) stop a journal from letting
>anon2>  an author withdraw his name from a co-authored article.

I would agree entirely that the "principles" that were invoked there 
were
self-serving, and that this is not the first time NEJM has done that
sort of thing:
    http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001701/00/harnad00.scinejm.htm
    http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001703/00/harnad00.lancet.htm
However, no matter how whole-heartedly one advocates OA (and few will
fault me for half-heartedness in this!), can anyone deny that it is *not*
a journal's moral duty to become an OA journal if it does not wish to?

Never mind what rationale or rationalization the journal cites for
declining to become an OA journal (be it some self-serving invocation of
copyright law and copyright protection, or some spurious coupling with
peer-review and quality-control, or with preservation and perpetuity --
or even bonafide worries about the risks of making a radical change in its
business model): All the journal is *really* doing is declining to
convert to becoming OA publishers.

Surely they have that right. And if you or I were the publishers of NEJM,
we would decline too! But (assuming we still had command over our
souls, and did not become anosognosic, ex officio, to the obvious benefits
of OA to research and researchers), what we would instead do first would
be to agree to become (Romeo) *green* (OAarch-friendly) publishers,
on the rationale that:

   "Yes, OA is optimal for research and researchers. I don't
   wish to deny or obstruct that. So if a researcher wants OA so badly, I
   won't stop him from having it: He may self-archive. But why should *I*,
   as publisher, take on the added needless risk and burden of converting
   *now* to OA publishing, an untested model, and highly threatening to
   my existing revenue stream and modus operandi, when the researchers,
   who purport to want OA so much, don't even bother to do what is within
   their own power to do, today, in the interests of open-access to their
   work, *and with my blessing, as publisher*! Let them self-archive,
   and then if OA eventually prevails, I will gradually adapt to it
   in whatever way proves necessary. But putting a moral shotgun to
   my head, and my head alone, to convert to OApub at this time, seems
   as churlish as it seems unnecessary."

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

And *is* unnecessary, I might add. It is a needless hobby-horse, being
ridden instead of encouraging the self-help that is within the reach of
the research community. (I am guilty of once having taken a similar
moral line; but that was years ago, when things had not yet come into clear
focus. Indeed, let's not forget that I was among the very first to propose
the OApub "business" model -- author-end publication fees instead of
reader-end access-tolls [Harnad 1995]. 

        Harnad, S. (1995) Electronic Scholarly Publication: Quo
        Vadis? Serials Review 21(1) 70-72 (Reprinted in Managing
        Information 2(3) 1995).
    http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/91/index.html 
    http://library.caltech.edu/publications/scholarsforum/050899sharnad.htm
    http://www.trauma-pages.com/harnad96.htm
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0402.html
    http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue8/harnad/
    http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/nature.html
    http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
    http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0704.htm

But it has since become clear that conversion to OApub is not the fastest
or surest way to OA: OAarch is; and that OAarch itself will eventually
lead to OApub too -- but meanwhile we will already have OA!)

Stevan Harnad

> >>Open-access row leads paper to shed authors
> >>
> >>DECLAN BUTLER
> >>
> >>A spat between the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and one 
of the 
> >>leaders of a movement for open access to the scientific literature 
has 
> >>resulted in the journal rejecting a paper on kidney transplants at 
the 
> >>last minute - and immediately re-accepting it without the names of 
four of 
> >>the original authors.
> >>
> >>Caught up in the disagreement is Minnie Sarwal, a young researcher 
at 
> >>Stanford University School of Medicine in California, the lead 
author of 
> >>the paper, "Molecular heterogeneity in acute renal allograft 
rejection 
> >>identified by DNA microarray profiling"(M. Sarwal, et al. N. 
Engl. J. 
> >>Med. 349, 125-138; 2003), which was finally published on 10 July.
> >>
> >>One of her Stanford co-authors, Patrick Brown, says he wanted the 
paper 
> >>to be sent to an open-access journal, but reluctantly agreed to 
the NEJM 
> >>as this was important for Sarwal's career. Brown is a co-founder 
of the 
> >>Public Library of Science (PLoS), which launches its first 
open-access 
> >>journal next month. Papers published in PLoS journals are freely 
> >>available from the time at which they are published, whereas most 
> >>journals make papers available only to subscribers, for a period 
of time 
> >>at least - six months in the case of the NEJM.
> >>
> >>Brown says that he insisted that the NEJM publish the paper under 
the 
> >>terms of the PLoS open-access licence, which stipulates that the 
authors 
> >>retain copyright but agree to allow the unrestricted use, 
distribution 
> >>and reproduction of the article in any form, provided that the 
original 
> >>work is properly cited.
> >>
> >>The terms on which the paper was originally accepted are now hotly 

> >>disputed, however. When Brown received the galley proofs in June, 
a 
> >>sentence - "This article is published under the terms of the 
PLOS open 
> >>access license" - had been deleted from a previously agreed 
edit of the 
> >>paper. Jeffrey Drazen, editor-in-chief of the NEJM, says that the 
> >>sentence was only spotted at the last minute, and was 
unacceptable.
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>Drazen's decision to delete the PLoS rider presented Brown with a 
> >>dilemma. He says that he wanted to withdraw the paper in protest, 
but 
> >>felt that the results were important, and should be published 
without 
> >>further delay. Sarwal also did not want to retract the paper, as 
she had 
> >>distributed the galleys in confidence in support of a grant 
proposal.
> >>
> >>Instead, Brown called Drazen and demanded that his name and that 
of three 
> >>other authors be withdrawn from the paper, and that this be 
explained in 
> >>the published manuscript. Drazen refused. In a 5 June e-mail to 
Brown, he 
> >>wrote: "We are withdrawing acceptance because all eleven 
original authors 
> >>signed a letter, dated October 22, 2002, certifying that they were 
the 
> >>sole authors of the work. Thus, we cannot subsequently represent 
to our 
> >>readers that the remaining seven authors are the only authors of 
the 
> >>entire paper."
> >>
> >>The paper was rejected, and a new one accepted, after Brown asked 
Drazen 
> >>to reconsider, suggesting that the deleted authors be acknowledged 
as 
> >>having contributed to the experiments, and sharing responsibility 
for the 
> >>results.
> >>
> >>Drazen says that he agreed to re-accept the paper only after 
Sarwal 
> >>confirmed that the new authorship represented the sole authors of 
the 
> >>work, with Brown's team being important contributors. The paper 
was 
> >>immediately published. Brown subsequently contacted Nature to 
persuade 
> >>this journal to cover the story.
> >>
> >>The spat has resulted in name-calling on both sides. Brown alleges 
that 
> >>the events constitute a "clear and documented case of 
editorial 
> >>misconduct in the handling of an article", and that the 
change in 
> >>authorship is "manuscript laundering".
> >>
> >>In a statement, the NEJM asserts: "It is unfortunate that Dr 
Brown chose 
> >>to use important medical research affecting renal transplant 
patients to 
> >>generate publicity for his planned publishing ventures. A 
researcher of 
> >>his experience knows well that the Journal cannot selectively 
ignore 
> >>copyright laws so that individual authors can draw attention to a 
> >>personal cause. He placed his desire to promote his personal 
interest 
> >>above his responsibility to his research colleagues."
> >>
> >>For her part, Sarwal says: "I am just a young scientist 
trying to do good 
> >>science and feel terrible that any of this occurred."
> 


RE: [BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access

From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun AT mssrf.res.in>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 08:43:07 +0530


Threading: RE: [BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access from arun AT mssrf.res.in
      • This Message

Thanks very much Stevan. I am forwarding this to key Indian policymakers and
research funding agencies. I am sure many of them will respond positively.
Regards.

Arun

-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 6:06 PM
To: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org
Subject: [BOAI] Re: Third World Academy of Sciences and open access


On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Subbiah Arunachalam wrote:

> We should ask ourselves why in areas other than physics and computer
> science (where arXiv and CiteSeer are so very successful) scientists of
> the world are reluctant to set up open [access] archives. WSIS, Geneva,
> provides all of us a great opportunity to push the idea of open access
> to ALL S&T literature and get international support.

First, my gratitude (and that of many others) for your untiring work
on behalf of open access in the developing world. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3028.html

Your question is a very valid and timely one. (Although self-archiving
in other fields is not quite as sluggish as you fear, the self-archiving
rate in all fields, however, is still far, far too low:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt  ).

So, by way of a candidate reply to the question of why self-archiving
is not growing more quickly, the answer is, I think, simple, and exactly
the same for the developing world and the developed word: It is for
*exactly* the same reason that there would be very little research
published at all if it were not for the carrot/stick of "publish or
perish." If the careers and funding of researchers and the prestige
and overheads of their research institutions were not both formally and
causally contingent on publication, researchers would hardly publish. That
is human nature: they would still do research, but many would not bother
to publish it.

By exactly the same token, having been motivated by the existing
publish-or-perish reward system to publish, researchers will not
bother to maximize the uptake and impact of their research unless the
publish-or-perish mandate is extended to "publish with maximal 
impact."
In other words, it is up to researchers' institutions and their research
funders to *mandate* open access for their peer-reviewed research
publications, at both institutional and national levels, just as they 
mandate publishing itself (and for exactly the same reasons).

Once this is done, formally, self-archiving will quickly climb to the
high rate that has already been reachable in principle for several years
now, but has not yet been taken advantage of, for lack of motivation and
incentive -- and perhaps also for lack of knowledge of the direct causal
connection between research access and research impact.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt

The OAI has provided the all-important interoperability
protocol (http://www.openarchives.org). OAIster and
others have provided the cross-archives search services
(http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/). Romeo
has sorted out the rights issues
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20
Policies.htm
We at Southampton have provided some of the tools (self-archiving software
http://software.eprints.org/ scientometric imact-measuring
engines http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search and
http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php and standardized
online CV software http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi) plus
policy models for institutional and national open-access and
self-archiving policies and practises
(http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html and
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ and
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ ). And the BOAI
has sounded the clarion-call for open access
(http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ ).

It remains only for institions and research-funders to concertedly adopt
and apply these tools and policies by naturally extending their existing
"publish or perish" policies to "publish with maximized 
impact." That
means officially adopting the dual open-access strategy:

      (1) publish your research in an open-access journal whenever
      a suitable one exists (5%)

      and 

     (2) publish the rest of your research (95%) in a toll-access journal
but
     also self archive it in your own institutional Eprint Archives

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt

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 


ATTACHMENT: message.html!


[BOAI] Open Access Initiative from the Company of Biologists

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


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


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

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .