Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:45:49 +0200


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

  Stevan Harnad writes

> Thomas gived exactly the correct answer to Chris!

  I didn't know this was a quiz :-) 

> What is needed is institutional self-archiving, distributed across its
> departments interoperably, but customized to the different needs of the
> different disciplines.

  That is a tall order. 

> (1) Institutions can mandate self-archiving, disciplines cannot.

  Cliff imagines that they can, but in practice, it will be tough.
  You can not put a KGB officer in every academic's office!

> (2) Most disciplines do not have disciplinary OAI Archives at all.

  Sure, but all have some ways to communicate informally, and many
  have innovative channels. Sure, many of them stay small, but
  there is not technical obstacle to a meaningful aggergation. 

> (4) There are many other potential uses for institutional research
> archives (apart from open access).

  I agree. If I would run an institution's archive I would back
  up all the web sites each year. In 20 years time, you would get
  a fascinating picture of the development of the institution. 

> (5) OAI-interoperability guarantees that institutional and disciplinary
> self-archiving are equivalent from the open-access point of view, but
> aggregating institutional packages out of distributed disciplinary
> OAI archives is harder (though it is not clear how much harder) than
> aggregating disciplinary packages out of distributed institutional
> OAI archives.

  no, it is easier to construct feature-rich datasets out of 
  disciplinary archives, because some of them will be prepared
  with the specifics of an aggregator in mind.

  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: Radu <radu AT monicsoft.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:08:22 -0500


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message

Quoting Christopher Gutteridge <cjg AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>:

> What I'm asking is; has anyone given consideration to ways
> of smoothing over this duplication of effort? Possibly some
> negotiated automated process for insitutional archives
> uploading to the subject archive, or at least
> assisting the author in the process.

If peer-to-peer 'open' music sharing software like Napster and the 
like managed to get set up so quickly and be so successful, I wonder 
what the problem is within the academic circles.

Is it the inertia of 'researching the best standard'? Why don't we 
simply adopt one of the successful models already at work in 
the 'fringe industry'?

Why do we have to develop yet another standard?
- Is it for the sake of credit? Think about it. Are citations a good 
measure of credit? When you cite an article that simply describes 
someone else's work, who gets the credit? How far can one follow back 
the syntopical chain of citations? Just because a paper is cited a 
lot does it mean it's influential or plain wrong and lots of people 
jumped in the water to retrieve the stick?
- Because of reliability? That would be solved by someone investing 
in some servers that will be always up and which will selectively 
duplicate the works which get good 'marks' from their users.

Make the system 'credit-based', allow the researchers to just place 
the work they want to make public on dedicated machines within their 
Universities and other research venues.

 And please:
- stop creating all-new standards. Before you start standardization, 
look around and see if the same functionality is not already 
available.
- stop fragmenting the digital world into exclusivist 'servers' 
and 'services'. Are we striving for open or closed access?
- stop looking for the 'final ontology' for classifying stuff. The 
world is not perfect. People are not perfect. And good 
indexing/search facilities are more efficient than any ontology.

I could dig up references for most of my assertions, but I bet most 
of you are already aware of them.

We just need access to each-other's work, so that our ideas grow in 
the fertile land of other minds.

Cheers,
Radu
(www.monicsoft.net)





[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:37:18 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message

On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:

>sh> (1) Institutions can mandate self-archiving, disciplines cannot.
> 
>   Cliff [Lynch] imagines that they can, but in practice, it will be tough.
>   You can not put a KGB officer in every academic's office!

You're on the wrong track. Self-archiving can and will be mandated by
researchers' instituitions by and for *exactly* the same reasons and
methods as publishing-or-perishing is mandated by institutions. No
KGB, just the simple carrot/stick career consequences of research and
research impact. Once the direct causal connection between access and
impact is shown and known -- e.g.,
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html --
everyone will find it as natural that research institutions should
reward their researchers for maximizing the impact of their publishing
(by self-archiving it) as to maximize the publishing itself.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling

>sh> (2) Most disciplines do not have disciplinary OAI Archives at all.
> 
>   Sure, but all have some ways to communicate informally, and many
>   have innovative channels. Sure, many of them stay small, but
>   there is no technical obstacle to a meaningful aggregation. 

Here is the point on which Thomas and I part ways (profoundly). I agree
completely that where papers have not yet been self-archived in
OAI-compliant Archives (whether institutional or disciplinary) it is
highly desirable to find, link, metadata-enhance or harvest any
discoverable online papers that already exist on arbitrary websites
webwide. This is the invaluable service Thomas's RePEc (Research
Papers in Economics) is performing for over 86,000 non-OAI papers that
would otherwise be very difficult to find and use http://repec.org/

But the objective of OAI-compliant institutional self-archiving (and
a systematic policy mandating it) is to get away as soon as possible
from having to resort to these makeshift solutions for arbitrary web
content. (Nor is any of this relevant to what I said, which is that most
disciplines do not have disciplinary OAI Archives at all, and disciplines
are in no position to mandate self-archiving, whereas institutions are.)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim-arch.htm
http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi

>sh> (5) OAI-interoperability guarantees that institutional and 
disciplinary
>sh> self-archiving are equivalent from the open-access point of view, 
but
>sh> aggregating institutional packages out of distributed disciplinary
>sh> OAI archives is harder (though it is not clear how much harder) than
>sh> aggregating disciplinary packages out of distributed institutional
>sh> OAI archives.
> 
>   no, it is easier to construct feature-rich datasets out of 
>   disciplinary archives, because some of them will be prepared
>   with the specifics of an aggregator in mind.

I regret I couldn't follow the logic of this at all. First, there are
almost no disciplinary OAI archives. Second, makeshift measures with
arbitrary web content are exactly that: makeshift, interim measures.
Third, from the fact that "some" arbitrary content may happen to
have "some" desirable specific features, nothing whatsoever follows.
And fourth, whatever are the specific features desired, they can be
systematically included (and mandated) in the institutional OAI archives
(parametrized to fit each discipline). 

Aggregation is not the objective: Interoperable content is; and (mandated)
institutional OAI self-archiving is the most direct, fastest and surest
way to generate it.

Stevan Harnad


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

From: Radu <radu AT monicsoft.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:38:32 -0500


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

I would like to suggest a FAQ for people new to the list like me who 
come and don't know what issues have already been discussed and in 
what forum they should be discussed.

If such thing exists already and I didn't find it, please point me to 
it.

Cheers,
Radu

(www.monicsoft.net)



[BOAI] BOAI Forum and FAQ [was: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives]

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:26:15 -0500


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

At 03:38 PM 3/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I would like to suggest a FAQ for people new to the list like me who
>come and don't know what issues have already been discussed and in
>what forum they should be discussed.
>
>If such thing exists already and I didn't find it, please point me to
>it.
>
>Cheers,
>Radu
>
>(www.monicsoft.net)


Radu,
      The BOAI Forum is just a few days more than one month old.  The 
number of topics already discussed is very small.  See the archive of past 
postings at <http://threader.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lists/boaiforum/>.
      The BOAI has a general FAQ, 
<http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm>, and a more specialized 
Self-Archiving FAQ, <http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/>.  But the BOAI 
Forum does 
not have its own FAQ.

      Peter Suber
      (moderator of the BOAI Forum)


----------
Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy
Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374
Email peters AT earlham.edu
Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters

Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/
Editor, FOS News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:42:43 +0200


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] The RePEc (Economics) Model from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             [BOAI] Re: The RePEc (Economics) Model from krichel AT openlib.org
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from hussein AT cs.uct.ac.za

  Stevan Harnad writes

> >   Success here depends on selling the idea to academics, and that
> >   depends crucially on what business models are followed. 
> 
> I have no idea what "business models" have to do with 
demonstrating to
> academics that increasing research access increases research impact.
> http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/lawrence.html

  For self-archiving, abstract understanding is not sufficiont.
  You need action by academics. If you want to have an intermediated
  process (by means of an achive) then it will crucially depond
  on the behaviour of the intermediary, in this case of the archive
  managemnt. This is what I mean here by the business model
  of the archive. 

  You have changed your mind twice on what the optimal business
  model is. You will change it again... Until then, I shall
  keep a bit more quiet. When I return to NYC, I will have
  web access again, and find other things to do. 

  Just for correction

> online papers that already exist on arbitrary websites webwide. This
> is the invaluable service Thomas's RePEc (Research Papers in
> Economics) is performing for over 86,000 non-OAI papers

  RePEc does not index arbinary website, but archive sites.
  They have the same functioality as OAI archives, in fact
  OAI was modeled after RePEc. The whole OAI concept was 
  first implemented there. 

  With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,


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


[BOAI] The RePEc (Economics) Model

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:44:28 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] The RePEc (Economics) Model from radu AT monicsoft.net

[Subject header changed from the Cliff Lynch paper to RePEc to reflect
the change in focus.]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:

>   For self-archiving, abstract understanding [by academics]
>   is not sufficient.  You need action by academics. 
>   If you want to have an intermediated
>   process (by means of an archive) then it will crucially depend
>   on the behaviour of the intermediary, in this case of the archive
>   management.

The Repec model is one in which many distributed institutions,
each having archives of multiple economics papers of
their own, have their metadata gathered together and
enriched to provide OAI-like interoperability: http://repec.org/
Instead of using the OAI protocol, Repec uses the "Guildford" 
protocol --
ftp://netec.mcc.ac.uk/pub/NetEc/RePEc/all/root/docu/guilp.html -- but
it has been announced that Repec plans to become OAI-compliant eventually.
(Repec does *not*, as I had wrongly assumed, cover individual websites
too, as ResearchIndex/citeseer http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs
does, only multi-paper institutional archives.)

Repec is accordingly a form of institutional self-archiving, pre-dating
the OAI, but (1) focused on one discipline only (economics), and
(2) not requiring the individual archives to be OAI-compliant (but
Guildford-compliant). It is a very activist project, "a collaborative
effort of over 100 volunteers in 30 countries to enhance the dissemination
of research in economics."

It should be noted at once that if every discipline had its own
institutional Guildford-compliant archives and volunteers, as Economics
has, then I and many others would today be promoting Institutional
Guilford-compliant repositories rather than Institutional OAI-compliant
repositories (and the free software that Southampton designed for creating
OAI-compliant institutional repositories for self-archiving 
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/10inbrief.html would have
been Guildford-compliant software).

As it happened, it is OAI that prevailed (inspired partly by Guildford
and Repec), with Thomas Krichel as one of its co-founders, and still a
member of the OAI technical committee. What distinguished Repec is hence
not its interoperability protocol (since it plans to become OAI-compliant
anyway) but (a) its activism and (b) its discipline-specificity. If
there were a way to spread Repec's activism from economics to the other
disciplines, it would certainly be very welcome, just as it would  be
very welcome if there were a way to spread ArXiv's central-archiving
tendency to the other disciplines.

Unfortunately, no such generalization of either Repec or Arxiv to the
other disciplines has taken place (Repec began in 1997, Arxiv in 1991).
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
It is for this reason that it is OAI-compliant institutional
self-archiving that I happen to be promoting. And this is at last
showing signs of generalizing
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim-arch.htm
though still not fast enough. It is for that reason that various forms
of activism need to be promoted too, especially institutional activism:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#research-funders-do
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html
http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi

>   You have changed your mind twice on what the optimal business
>   model is. You will change it again... 

I have changed my mind in response to specific empirical changes that
have taken place across the years. (I would hope everyone else has
done so too.) For me, the first major change was the Internet itself,
converting me from conducting most activities on-paper to on-line:
http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/15/81/ I even founded
an online-only journal (1989): http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk

Then came Ann Okerson's suggestion that information should be free,
which I initially dismissed as unrealistic, but then realized that it
could be turned into something that made excellent sense on condition that it
was applied very specifically only to *author give-away* information
(of which the refereed research literature is the main representative),
rather than all information (or even all scholarly information):
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad95.quo.vadis.html

That was what then prompted the "subversive proposal" that 
researchers
should self-archive their give-away research (1994):
http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html  

At first, FTP sites and Web sites seemed the simplest, fastest and
most direct way for researchers to self-archive, on a distributed,
institutional basis; but then the slow progress in this, and the
success of the physicists' centralized disciplinary model suggested
that centralized, discipline-based self-archiving might be
faster, with the Physics Arxiv itself perhaps subsuming it all
http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/99/
(Thomas Krichel argued against central archiving, and in favor of
distributed archiving at the time, but at that time, pre-OAI, and with
Arxiv looking as if it would scale up, it was not at all clear why
distributed archiving was preferable.)

I even founded a central disciplinary archive modeled on the
Physics Arxiv, (Cogprints, designed by Matt Hemus, 1997 and later
Rob Tansley) with a view to Arxiv's eventually subsuming it:
http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/

But central archiving did not catch on (Cogprints has only reached
1500 papers in 2003) or generalize to other disciplines, and Arxiv
itself kept growing at only an unchanged linear rate from year to year:
http://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions

And then came the OAI protocol in 1999, making distributed self-archiving
equivalent to central (because of interoperability)
http://www.openarchives.org/documents/index.html
which immediately prompted me to ask Rob Tansley to redesign
the Cogprints software to make it OAI-compliant and then turn it
into free generic OAI archive-creating software for institutions
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/10inbrief.html

Next came the Budapest Open Access Initiative, uniting the two roads
to open access (BOAI-1: self-archiving; BOAI-2: open-access journals)
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/

And the self-archiving momentum has been growing ever since:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim-arch.htm

But I am still ready to change my mind if any new developments call
for it. (I hope you are too!) The momentum is still not nearly as great
as it could and should be.

>   RePEc does not index arbitrary website, but archive sites.
>   They have the same functionality as OAI archives, in fact
>   OAI was modeled after RePEc. The whole OAI concept was 
>   first implemented there. 

I think I now understand this. See above. Both Repec's
aggregation of institutional multi-paper archives in economics and
Citeseer/ResearchIndex's harvesting of arbitrary individual websites
in computer science are welcome interim measures for increasing the
visibility and usability of what open-access content already exists
online -- while the institutional OAI-compliant self-archiving momentum
grows. Anything that helps fast-forward us toward universal open-access
to the entire refereed research literature (2,000,000 papers per year,
across all disciplines) is welcome and should be embraced by all who are
open-minded among us, regardless of which open-access route they happen
to favor.

Stevan Harnad



Re: [BOAI] The RePEc (Economics) Model

From: Radu <radu AT monicsoft.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:34:10 -0500


Threading: [BOAI] The RePEc (Economics) Model from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

Excellent historical FAQ/timeline. Could you please put it up on the 
BOAI site and update it given other individual points of view of the 
people involved?

Thanks,
Radu
(www.monicsoft.net)



[BOAI] Re: The RePEc (Economics) Model

From: Thomas Krichel <krichel AT openlib.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:16:33 +0200


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: The RePEc (Economics) Model from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk


  Stevan Harnad writes

> The Repec model is one in which many distributed institutions,
> each having archives of multiple economics papers of
> their own, have their metadata gathered together and
> enriched to provide OAI-like interoperability: http://repec.org/

  The interoperability is more complicated then in a conventional
  OAI setting, because the structure of the data exchanged goes will
  beyond what can be done with oai_dc.

> Instead of using the OAI protocol, Repec uses the "Guildford"
> protocol -- ftp://netec.mcc.ac.uk/pub/NetEc/RePEc/all/root/docu/guilp.html 
--
> but it has been announced that Repec plans to become OAI-compliant
> eventually.

  I already operate a gateway at http://oai.repec.openlib.org. It's
  oai_dc data may be a bit thin, but there is plenty of AMF metadata.

> (Repec does *not*, as I had wrongly assumed, cover individual
> websites too, as ResearchIndex/citeseer
> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs does, only multi-paper institutional
> archives.)

  Departmental archives, as distinguished from institutional archives.
  Some archives serve special purposes, they hold no docuemnt
  data at all. 

> Repec is accordingly a form of institutional self-archiving,
> pre-dating the OAI, but (1) focused on one discipline only
> (economics), and (2) not requiring the individual archives to be
> OAI-compliant (but Guildford-compliant).

  Correct, which is basically just a way to dump files on a disk,
  nothing more. 

> It is a very activist project, "a collaborative
> effort of over 100 volunteers in 30 countries to enhance the dissemination
> of research in economics."

  Correct, and almost all are economics faculty. Some folks do 
  little, but the construction of the whole enterprise means that
  even if they do little, since there are many 

> It should be noted at once that if every discipline had its own
> institutional Guildford-compliant archives and volunteers, as Economics
> has, then I and many others would today be promoting Institutional
> Guilford-compliant repositories rather than Institutional OAI-compliant
> repositories (and the free software that Southampton designed for creating
> OAI-compliant institutional repositories for self-archiving
> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/10inbrief.html would have
> been Guildford-compliant software).

  The technical protocol for the transport matters little. This
  really (!) is a technical matter. We continue with what we
  got because we can not rearrange 250+ archives that otherwise
  do just fine. 

> What distinguished Repec is hence not its interoperability protocol
> (since it plans to become OAI-compliant anyway) but (a) its activism
> and (b) its discipline-specificity.

  and (c) its metadata model. This is by far the most important, but least
  well understood distinction. 

> If there were a way to spread Repec's activism from economics to the
> other disciplines, it would certainly be very welcome, just as it
> would be very welcome if there were a way to spread ArXiv's
> central-archiving tendency to the other disciplines.

  Could not agree more.

> Unfortunately, no such generalization of either Repec or Arxiv to the
> other disciplines has taken place (Repec began in 1997, Arxiv in 1991).

  RePEc has its origin in a project called WoPEc that I started on
  February 1, 1993. In 1997, RePEc was born essentially out of WoPEc
  and some other partners, but WoPEc had the lion's share (I am
  simplifying here a bit.)

> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm It is for this
> reason that it is OAI-compliant institutional self-archiving that I
> happen to be promoting. And this is at last showing signs of
> generalizing http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim-arch.htm
> though still not fast enough. It is for that reason that various
> forms of activism need to be promoted too, especially institutional
> activism:

  There is no contradicition between institutional and departmental 
  archives, and aggregator strutures. It is by no means an either
  or choice. And let me emphasise again: having discipline-based
  aggregators will be the best way to stimulate institutional 
  and departmental archiving. The problem is, of course, that
  there are not many aggregators around. Therefore I have been
  argueing for a while thet the institutional self-archiving
  community should stick together to elect one area of discplinary
  priority. That is rather that to fight a war on all fronts,
  concentrate the effort and build systems that are interoperable
  beyond the unqualified DC data model. The DC data model is too simple
  for academic self-documentation.

> At first, FTP sites and Web sites seemed the simplest, fastest and
> most direct way for researchers to self-archive, on a distributed,
> institutional basis;

  They still are, just look at the amount of stuff that is on the
  web. There are so many grass-roots initiatives. The larger
  public is not aware of them because they serve specific communities. 
  This is where I get so angry with Clifford and his---implicit---call
  to shut them down, to fit all publishing activities into a central
  straightjacket. 

> but then the slow progress in this, and the success of the
> physicists' centralized disciplinary model suggested that
> centralized, discipline-based self-archiving might be faster, with
> the Physics Arxiv itself perhaps subsuming it all
> http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/99/ (Thomas
> Krichel argued against central archiving,

  Nope. I simply argued that the centralized model would not
  carry through to many disciplines. Where it worked it 
  was certainly an extremely good model. But you insisted
  that because the Physcists had done it everyone could
  and would, it was the optimal way (your flavour of the day).
  But I am still right. arXiv has a very unequal distribution
  of papers even in sub-areas of Physics, I am told. Ebs will
  know better. arXiv is still growing and that is a good thing.

> But central archiving did not catch on (Cogprints has only reached
> 1500 papers in 2003) or generalize to other disciplines,

  Exactly as I had forecasted! And that, depite the fact that
  it was a project subsidized by public funds. When WoPEc became
  a funded project, by the same funders, it had around 5,000
  papers accumulated as a labor of love, only. Much of that
  work was done by José Manuel Barrueco Cruz. 

> and Arxiv itself kept growing at only an unchanged linear rate from
> year to year: http://arxiv.org/show_monthly_submissions
  
  Sure, but it is still is the finest self-archiving project on the planet.
  But it really is self-archiving. Self-archiving is only a part 
  of what I call self-documentation. 
  
> And then came the OAI protocol in 1999, making distributed
> self-archiving equivalent to central (because of interoperability)
> http://www.openarchives.org/documents/index.html
 
  They are not quite, but that is a matter for another email...

> which immediately prompted me to ask Rob Tansley to redesign the
> Cogprints software to make it OAI-compliant and then turn it into
> free generic OAI archive-creating software for institutions
> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/10inbrief.html

  And I think your team are doing a very good job with this.

> I think I now understand this. See above. Both Repec's
> aggregation of institutional multi-paper archives in economics and
> Citeseer/ResearchIndex's harvesting of arbitrary individual websites
> in computer science

  Citeseer are a truely fab project. The material that is there
  should become part of new, RePEc-like data structure called
  rclis and pronounced "reckless". Watch out for it over the
  next few years. 

  With greetings from Minsk, Belarus,


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


[BOAI] Re: The RePEc (Economics) Model

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 02:10:48 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: The RePEc (Economics) Model from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Thomas Krichel wrote:

> There is no contradiction between institutional and departmental 
> archives

I agree completely. In fact, departmental archives *are* institutional
archives (as opposed to centralised, disciplinary ones, like the Physics
Ar Xiv or Cog Prints).


> having discipline-based
> aggregated will be the best way to stimulate institutional 
> and departmental archiving. The problem is, of course, that
> there are not many aggregateness around. Therefore I have been
> arguing for a while that the institutional self-archiving
> community should stick together to elect one area of disciplinary
> priority... [R]aether than to fight a war on all fronts,
> concentrate the effort and build systems that are inter operable
> beyond the unqualified DC data model. The DC data model is too simple
> for academic self-documentation.

I have no problem with elaborating the MAI protocol if it is necessary
and useful (I am not technically qualified to judge one way or the
other). But I *definitely* disagree that the institutional self-archiving
immunity should "elect one area of disciplinary priority"! 

Repacks aggregating and enriching efforts with what Economics web content
exists already, and Cite seer's harvesting and enriching efforts with what
Computer-Science web content exists already are both invaluable interim
contributions to making existing web content more inter operable and
usable, but what is urgently needed is (much, much) more content, in all
disciplines! That is what the (AI) self-archiving movement is about.
And this can and will be done in parallel, for all disciplines. There is
no sense in waiting to do it one-by-one serially, whether discipline by
discipline or journal by journal!

> just look at the amount of stuff that is on the web. There are so many
> grass-roots initiatives. The larger public is not aware of them because
> they serve specific communities. This is where I get so angry with
> Clifford and his---implicit---call to shut them down, to fit all
> publishing activities into a central straight jacket.

Cliff Lynch is not calling -- explicitly or implicitly -- for fitting
"all publishing activities into a central straitjacket"! He is simply
supporting self-archiving by institutions (which includes self-archiving
by their departments!)

And when I look at the web I am of course struck by how much is on it,
but for more struck by how much could so easily be on it, but is *not* --
across all disciplines. The target is the 2,000,000 papers published
annually in the planet's 20,000 peer-reviewed journals.

> you insisted that because the Physicist's had done [centralisers
> self-archiving], everyone could and would, it was the optimal way

No Thomas, what I said and wrote (many times) is "optimal and 
inevitable,"
is *open access* (i.e., free on line full-text access to all refereed
research). That is the *end.* Centralized Arxiv-style self-archiving is
merely one of the candidate *means,* and it did look like it was headed
toward prevailing for a while; but then it became clear that faster means
were needed. And with OAI-compliant institutional (including departmental)
self-archiving I think those faster means are at hand, the ones that
can and will at last scale up to the whole corpus, across disciplines.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim-arch.htm

>sh> central archiving did not catch on
>
> Exactly as I had forecasted! 

Dear Thomas: *Nothing* has so far caught on, in over 10 years of having
open-access within reach! So it was always the safer bet that any new
candidate means would fail too! Don't be too proud of having predicted
that central archiving would not catch on. The challenge is still to
find a means that *will* catch on, and to *make* it catch on. (And the
Big Koan is still: Why is it taking so long, given that the outcome is
optimal and inevitable and reachable?)

>sh> The Big Koan is: "Why aren't all researchers self-archiving 
yet, given
>sh> its benefits and feasibility?"
>sh> http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html
>
> One answer that I have is that the benefits of doing
> self archiving have to be demonstrated to the invidual
> level of each researcher.

Agreed. And we, and you, and others are working on doing exactly that.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

Stevan Harnad


[BOAI] 3 forthcoming talks on open access through self-archiving (April-May)

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:07:29 +0000 (GMT)


Threading:      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] 3 forthcoming talks on open access through self-archiving (April-May) from peter.j.murray AT btinternet.com

Here are three forthcoming talks on open access through self-archiving
(plus a related workshop):

Symposium on Scholarly Publishing and Archiving on the Web
University of Albany 7 April 2003.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS: 
"Maximizing Research Impact Through Institutional Self-Archiving"
http://library.albany.edu/symposium/program.html 

Council of Science Editors (CSE) Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh PA 4 May 2003.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS: 
"Author/Institution Self-Archiving and the Future of Peer-Reviewed 
Journals" 
http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/events_03Program_Schedule.shtml 

International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical
(STM) Publishers "Universal Access: By Evolution or Revolution?" 
Amsterdam, 15-16 May 2003.
INVITED ADDRESS:
"Open Access by Peaceful Evolution"
http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html  

International School of Advanced Studies (SISSA) (with partial
support of the European Union) 
Workshop on "Peer Review in the Age of Open Archives" 
Trieste (Italy) 24-25 May 2003.

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/



[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: Hussein Suleman <hussein AT cs.uct.ac.za>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:17:52 +0200


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from krichel AT openlib.org
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Interoperability - subject classification/terminology from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from comyn AT utk.edu

hi

this may be stating the obvious, but why not use sets for the separate 
disciplines, aimed at particular service providers? i say it that way 
because some disciplines are not well-defined (namely, computer science) 
so such archives may want to play ball with multiple service providers 
and hence may need different sets.

in any event, for something like physics, a simple set might do the 
trick at the source. then, somewhat in keeping with the Kepler model (as 
published in DLib a while back), the service provider can provide an 
interface for potential data providers to self-register. i know this 
sounds dodgy, but think of it as an alternative mechanism for 
contribution. either individual users submit individual papers or groups 
submit baseURLS - both go through some kind of review and while one 
leads to once-off storage, the other leads to periodic harvesting.

what remains a difficult problem, however, is how to recreate the 
metadata used by the service provider as its native format. so, for a 
typical example, if arXiv classifies items using a specific set 
structure, this is certainly not going to be the default for an 
institutional archive. does the service provider automatically or 
manually reclassify? or does it not allow browsing by categories? in 
either event, the quality of the metadata from the perspective of the 
service provider may be an impetus for potential users to want to 
replicate their effort rather than rely on the automated submission from 
their own institutions ... this needs more thought ...

ttfn,
----hussein


Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
> Disciplinary/subject archives vs. Institutional/Organisation/Region based
> archives. This is going to be a key challenge now open archives begin
> to gain momentum. 
> 
> For example; we are planning a University-wide eprints archive. I am 
> concerned that some physisists will want to place their items in both
> the university eprints service AND the arXiv physics archive. They may 
> be required to use the university service, but want to use arXiv as it
> is the primary source for their discipline. This is a duplication of 
> effort and a potential irritation.
> 
> Ultimately, of course, I'd hope that diciplinary archives will be replaced
> with subject-specific OAI service providers harvesting from the 
institutional
> archives. But there is going to be a very long transition period in which
> the solution evolves from our experience.
> 
> What I'm asking is; has anyone given consideration to ways of smoothing
> over this duplication of effort? Possibly some negotiated automated 
process
> for insitutional archives uploading to the subject archive, or at least
> assisting the author in the process.
> 
> This isn't the biggest issue, but it'd be good to address it before it
> becomes more of a problem.
> 
>   Christopher Gutteridge
>   GNU EPrints Head Developer
>   http://software.eprints.org/
> 
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 02:15:56 +0000, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> 
>>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
> 
> 


-- 
=====================================================================
hussein suleman ~ hussein AT cs.uct.ac.za ~ http://www.husseinsspace.com
=====================================================================


Re: [BOAI] 3 forthcoming talks on open access through self-archiving (April-May)

From: Peter Murray <peter.j.murray AT btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:01:32 +0000


Threading: [BOAI] 3 forthcoming talks on open access through self-archiving (April-May) from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

A related event on Open Access with particular interest to UK health=20
community may be the following (although it doesn't seem to be on=20
self-archiving):

http://www.hi-europe.info/meeting/announce/9933.htm

a Forum on Open Access in Medical Research Publishing at the British=20
Library in London on Monday April 14th 2003.

Co-hosted by the NHS, the British Library and BioMed Central, this event=20
will provide an afternoon of talks and open discussion on developments and=
=20
issues in new models of scholarly publishing. If you are involved in=20
medical research, and are in a position to publish your findings, you will=
=20
need to know about these new developments, as they will directly affect the=
=20
visibility and citability of your work. In addition, the NHS has recently=20
become a member of BioMed Central, which is of direct benefit to=20
researchers =97 come and find out why!

Regards,
Dr Peter Murray


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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .