Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: Interoperability - subject classification/terminology

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:36:42 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from hussein AT cs.uct.ac.za
      • This Message

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Hussein Suleman wrote:

> ...why not use sets for the separate 
> disciplines, aimed at particular service providers?...
> 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.

The question of taxonomic classification sets and version-control for
Open Archives is a technical one, so I will not presume to comment on it
except from the point of view of the potential *users* of one particular
kind of Archive Content, namely, unrefereed preprints and refereed
postprints of research papers from one or many or all disciplines: This
-- in the google-age of boolean inverted full-text searchability --
does not require a detailed a-priori taxonomy, as book metadata or the
metadata for other kinds of material might. A fairly general sorting by
discipline should suffice.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#26.Classification
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2385.html

> ...the service provider can provide an 
> interface for potential data providers to self-register.

I hope that once the number and contents of Open-Access Eprint Archives
for research preprints and postprints have scaled up toward something
closer to universality, the simple metadata descriptors "pre-refereeing
preprint" and "refereed journal article" plus perhaps 
"discipline name"
will be enough to guide relevant service-providers in automatically
harvesting their relevant metadata. Multiple self-registration seems a
tedious and unnecessary constraint. (Possibly a master-registry of valid
institutions and disciplinary archives will also help, but may not be
necessary unless commercial spamming invades this sector too.)

> 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? 

Worrying about "recreating the categories" in this boolean full-text 
age
is, I believe, a waste of time (for research preprints/postprints). Just
harness google's harvested full-text to your engine's search capability,
if it is incapable of contending with boolean full-text search on its
own. (Manual reclassification! Heaven forfend! Don't bother classifying
this material in the first place, beyond the simplest of first-cuts,
such as discipline. Any further classification should be algorithmic and
text-data-driven, not manual.)

> 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 ...

Again, I speak only for research preprints/postprints, but please let's
not inject any further credibility into the notion that self-archiving
author/institutions will also have to self-advertise by multiple
self-archiving of the same paper. Surely that is one headache that
OAI-interoperability should eradicate from the planet! Self-archiving
itself is self-advertising (and effort) enough. Please let us not
now -- when the momentum is still not big enough -- saddle would-be
self-archivers with needless extra worries, and tasks!
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim-arch.htm

Stevan Harnad


[BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives

From: "Paul Cummins" <comyn AT utk.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:05:54 -0500 (EST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Cliff Lynch on Institutional Archives from hussein AT cs.uct.ac.za
      • This Message

 I have thought about trying to make sets for each subject entry, and then ran
across the idea of a "home set" identifier that would point to the 
original
association.  But I am just beginning to work with OAI and probably need to
read all the archives. :)
--Paul Cummins
UT Library, Systems


> 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
> =====================================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> OAI-general mailing list
> OAI-general AT oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu
> http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oai-general




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

From: Christopher Gutteridge <cjg AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 15:59:58 +0000


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

I agree! Most archives currently existing have, so far as I can tell,
created sets based on their own subject schemes.

Given that sets are *not* part of the metadata, but a way to harvest
a subset of the records, creating sets which conform to the requirements
of a service provider.

For example, our archive contains 8000 records, but only 800 of those
have actual documents available online. Some OAI services only want to
deal with records which are available online, so the 800 records are
available as an OAI set.

Keeping it simple would be good. If harvesters could describe their
scope in terms of popular classification schemes. Dewey, LoC, etc.

Although there is an argument for making the service provider/
harvester do all the work, as anything which makes it harder to
set up an OAI archive is a Bad Thing.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 09:17:52 +0200, Hussein Suleman wrote:
> 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
> =====================================================================

-- 
    Christopher Gutteridge -- cjg AT ecs.soton.ac.uk -- +44 (0)23 8059 4833

                          >O___,
 __________________________(___)___________________________________________
|                                   |                                      |
| Now Playing: "For You" from       | Pessimist by policy, optimist 
by     |
| Tracy Chapman - Tracy Chapman     | temperament -- it is possible to be  |
|                                   | both. How? By never taking an        |
|                                   | unnecessary chance and by            |
|                                   | minimizing risks you can't avoid.    |
|                                   | This permits you to play out the     |
|                                   | game happily, untroubled by the      |
|                                   | certainty of the outcome. -- From    |
|                                   | "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" 
by   |
|                                   | Robert Heinlein                      |
|___________________________________|______________________________________|


[BOAI] Draft IFLA Manifesto on Open Access (fwd)

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:27:56 +0100 (BST)


Draft below. Comments in next message.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:28:14 +1100
From: Alex Byrne <alex.byrne AT uts.edu.au>
Subject: Draft IFLA Manifesto on Open Access
To: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org
Message-id: <3E83EB7E.1DE848CD AT uts.edu.au>
Organization: UTS Library

I am writing on behalf of the Governing Board of IFLA which is seeking
comment on the attached DRAFT IFLA Manifesto on Open Access to Scholarly
Literature and Research Documentation.  We would very much appreciate
your input, preferably by or as soon as possible after 30 April 2003.
Any comments may be sent to me at alex.byrne AT uts.edu.au or faxed to me
at +61 2 9514 3332. --  Alex Byrne

IFLA MANIFESTO ON OPEN ACCESS 
TO SCHOLARLY LITERATURE AND RESEARCH DOCUMENTATION

IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and
Institutions) is committed to ensuring the widest possible access to
information for all peoples in accordance with the principles expressed
in the Glasgow Declaration (see http://www.ifla.org).

IFLA declares that comprehensive open access to scholarly literature and
research documentation is vital to the understanding of our world and to
the identification of solutions to global challenges.

IFLA acknowledges that the discovery, contention, elaboration and
application of research in all fields will enhance human well being,
progress and sustainability.  The peer reviewed scholarly literature is
a vital element in the processes of research and scholarship.  It is
supported by a range of research documentation which includes preprints,
technical reports and records of research data.

IFLA notes that the worldwide network of library and information
services provides access to past, present and future scholarly
literature and research documentation; ensures its preservation; assists
users in discovery and use; and educates users to develop appropriate
information literacies.

IFLA advocates the adoption of the following open access principles by
all involved in the recording and dissemination of research =96 including
authors, editors, publishers, libraries and institutions =96 in order to
ensure the widest possible availability of scholarly literature and
research documentation:

1. Acknowledgement and defence of the moral rights of authors,
especially the rights of attribution and integrity.

2. Recognition of objective and effective peer review processes to
assure the quality of scholarly literature irrespective of mode of
publication and without distortion to support extraneous purposes such
as confirmation of tenure or promotion of faculty.

3. Promotion of measures to facilitate publication of quality assured
scholarly literature and research documentation by researchers and
scholars in developing nations, from indigenous peoples and among those
otherwise disadvantaged.

4. Protection under copyright of all scholarly literature and research
documentation for a strictly limited period determined by law for the
benefit of authors followed by succession to the public domain for the
benefit of all peoples.

5. Strengthening of fair dealing provisions in international copyright
agreements and directives, national laws, and publishing contracts and
licences to ensure unhindered access by other researchers and the
general public.

6. Assurance of the availability to all peoples of all scholarly
literature and research documentation which has been designated by its
authors to be made available through preprints, open access journals and
archives, or other means.

7. Implementation of affordable mechanisms to enable access to scholarly
literature and research documentation by the peoples of developing
nations and all who experience information inequality including the
disabled and otherwise disadvantaged.

8. Inclusion of provisions in law, contracts and licences to ensure
preservation in perpetuity of all scholarly literature and research
documentation in libraries and archives in formats and under conditions
which will ensure enduring availability and useability.

9. Operation of effective systems by libraries and publishers to ensure
the preservation in perpetuity of all scholarly literature and research
documentation with authenticity and continuing useability guaranteed.

Process for adoption approved by IFLA Governing Board 15 March 2003:

1. Discuss at Governing Board March 2003.
2. Seek comment from IPA and CLM.
3. Seek comments from those with a particular interest in open access
issues =96 deadline 30 April 2003.
4. Put draft on IFLANet for comment by other interested parties =96
deadline 30 April 2003.
5. Redraft by 30 May 2003.
6. Governing Board to review and discuss by email by 30 June 2003.
7. Final version to be approved by the Governing Board, August 2003,
Berlin, Germany.

Comments to be sent to Alex Byrne, Member IFLA Governing Board and Chair
IFLA Committee on Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression,
alex.byrne AT uts.edu.au by 30 April 2003.


[BOAI] Re: Draft IFLA Manifesto on Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 02:31:16 +0100 (BST)


On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Alex Byrne wrote:

> IFLA MANIFESTO ON OPEN ACCESS 
> TO SCHOLARLY LITERATURE AND RESEARCH DOCUMENTATION
> 
> IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and
> Institutions) is committed to ensuring the widest possible access to
> information for all peoples in accordance with the principles expressed
> in the Glasgow Declaration (see http://www.ifla.org).

It is highly desirable and commendable to be committed to the widest
possible access to information. But in order to promote *open access*
it is essential to be far more specific about the *nature* of the
information. In particular, the IFLA Manifesto is doomed to fail and to be
ignored if it does not make a specific and explicit distinction between
information that its creator *does* wish to give away, and information
its creator does *not* wish to give away. (Notice that I said *creator*
and not *publisher*.)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.1

If this distinction is not made, and followed, the manifesto is
incoherent, and makes it seem as if henceforth even the authors of
best-selling novels must give their work away online, whether they wish
to or not. (I repeat, this concerns the meaning of "open access.") It 
is
also desirable that you specify that the IFLA is concerned mainly with
*writing*, because otherwise your manifesto gets into the sticky area of
software (not all of which is intended by its creators as a give-away)
and even patent information (likewise not a creator give-away).

So my first suggestion is to specify that insofar as "open access* is
concerned, the IFLA Manifesto is only concerned with author-give-away
information, and mainly with give-away writings. Then a very specific
body of such writing can be named, as it is in the BOAI:
Refereed journal articles
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess

The reason this particular body of writing is the target is that it is
and always has been an author give-away, written purely for research
impact (i.e., to be read, used, cited, built-upon, applied), and not
for author income from sales of the text. Hence the tolls charged by
publishers for access to the text have always cost their authors,
institutions and funders a great deal in terms of lost impact. This loss
in research impact because of access-denying tolls is in turn borne also
by society and by research progress itself. Hence all would benefit from
open access -- *to this literature*; but this argument does not apply to
information as a whole.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

It is also important to stress -- for this specific literature, the
research reported in the refereed journals (about 20,000 worldwide,
2,000,000 articles annually) -- that the reason open access is necessary
is for the sake of the research itself, and its potential benefits to
researchers, institutions, and the society that funds it. Of course an
immediate consequence of open access to this research will be benefits
to other users too: developing countries, students and teachers, the
general public. But it is a strategic mistake to portray these
additional benefits of open access as the main reason for seeking it
(for the same benefits would arise from freeing access to the
non-give-away literature, not written for impact but for income, and
there they would not be compelling reasons). The main rationale for open
access to the refereed research literature has to be research impact
itself, which comes from usage by researchers, and is currently blocked
by access-tolls.

> IFLA declares that comprehensive open access to scholarly literature and
> research documentation is vital to the understanding of our world and to
> the identification of solutions to global challenges.

Even this is too general. It is better than "all information," but
"scholarly literature and research documentation" is still too vague 
and
includes work written for income as well as work written only for
impact. The distinction must be made clearly and explicitly, and honored.

> IFLA acknowledges that the discovery, contention, elaboration and
> application of research in all fields will enhance human well being,
> progress and sustainability.  The peer reviewed scholarly literature is
> a vital element in the processes of research and scholarship.  It is
> supported by a range of research documentation which includes preprints,
> technical reports and records of research data.

At last we arrive at the right target literature, but it would be better
if we had gone there directly, explicitly stating the two-fold basis
for singling out this literature: (1) It is an author give-away,
written by its authors only to be used and applied, not for income
from access-tolls and (2) the access-tolls block usage and impact,
and hence the progress of research itself. 

It would also be good to add a reminder of exactly what has *changed*:
(3) In the on-paper era, the access-tolls were necessary to cover the
costs of dissemination; in the on-line era they are no longer necessary
at all (because the only remaining essential cost is that of implementing
peer review).

These peer-reviewers provide their refereeing services for free (just as
these authors give away their writing for free). The only remaining
essential cost -- the IFLA is simply asking for trouble if it denies
or ignores it -- is the cost of *implementing* the peer review. This
cost is no more than $500 per paper, and can easily be covered by the
institutional windfall savings if and when access tolls vanish (the
average collective cost to licensed institutions, jointly, per paper,
is $2000 currently). But this requires admitting that if open-access
is achieved by eliminating access-tolls, then all 20,000 toll-access
journals need to become open-access journals, charging institutions
for peer-review of their outgoing papers, instead of charging them for
access to incoming journal-articles.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#4.2

But note that the IFLA Manifesto would weaken itself if it were merely a 
a call to toll-access publishers to convert to open-access publishing.
They will not and need not heed the call (they have heard it all many
times before). But there is a second path to open-access that does not
depend on publishers' agreeing to convert to open-access right now, and
that is: author/institution self-archiving of all institutional research
output, pre- and post peer review. This can take place (and is taking
place) in parallel with toll-access publication. It is a way for these
give-away authors and their institutions to maximize their research
impact right now. It is growing. And publishers cannot and will not try
to block it, for blocking it is tantamount to declaring themselves (and
declaring refereed journal publishing) to be dedicated to blocking
research impact in order to maximize publishing revenues, an untenable
position in the online era. Hence publishers are in fact supporting
self-archiving in growing numbers (55% do so already).
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html

And it is likely that open-access through self-archiving will
peacefully co-exist with toll-access for a long time to come, allowing
a stable transition to open-access publishing if and when it becomes
necessary. Meanwhile, toll-access will be used by researchers at those
institutions that can afford it, for the journals they can afford,
whereas open access will be available for all those who cannot.

> IFLA notes that the worldwide network of library and information
> services provides access to past, present and future scholarly
> literature and research documentation; ensures its preservation; assists
> users in discovery and use; and educates users to develop appropriate
> information literacies.

All true, but not relevant to the give-away/non-give-away distinction
that is at the heart of all of this. Libraries provide access, etc.,
to both kinds of writing.

> IFLA advocates the adoption of the following open access principles by
> all involved in the recording and dissemination of research ^ including
> authors, editors, publishers, libraries and institutions ^ in order to
> ensure the widest possible availability of scholarly literature and
> research documentation:

It is a mistake, I think, to make a joint appeal to both (give-away)
authors and publishers. Separate appeals are needed. To authors:
self-archive your toll-access journal papers (and publish in open-access
journals where possible). To publishers: Support self-archiving and
consider converting to open-access where possible.

> 1. Acknowledgement and defence of the moral rights of authors,
> especially the rights of attribution and integrity.

A worthy but completely irrelevant point. The need for protecting
authorship and text integrity is not specific to either the give-away or
the non-give-away literature; it applies to both, and applies whether it
is on-paper or on-line, and whether it is toll-access or open-access. It
is a mistake to wrap open-access considerations in any of this. It is
not at issue.

> 2. Recognition of objective and effective peer review processes to
> assure the quality of scholarly literature irrespective of mode of
> publication and without distortion to support extraneous purposes such
> as confirmation of tenure or promotion of faculty.

Again, affirming the value of peer review is worthy, but not the issue.
Open access to the peer-reviewed literature is the issue. The peer
review comes with the territory. (It would also be better for the
library community not to make needless declarations on tenure
procedures: supporting open-access is enough. Tenure procedures need not
change, nor does peer review, for open access. Set aside the incorrect
notion that new open-access journals are being blocked because they
are ignored by promotion committees. They are not, and that is not
the problem.)

> 3. Promotion of measures to facilitate publication of quality assured
> scholarly literature and research documentation by researchers and
> scholars in developing nations, from indigenous peoples and among those
> otherwise disadvantaged.

This too is not an open-access issue. Founding or supporting
peer-reviewed journals in developing countries, and/or helping papers
from developing countries to appear in peer-reviewed journals in
developed countries is again worthy, but not an open-access issue, and
only confuses the issue. On the other hand, open access will certainly
benefit the developing countries, both by giving them access to the
peer-reviewed literature worldwide, most of which they cannot afford
now, and by increasing the visibility and impact of their own research
output.

> 4. Protection under copyright of all scholarly literature and research
> documentation for a strictly limited period determined by law for the
> benefit of authors followed by succession to the public domain for the
> benefit of all peoples.

A worthy goal, but not particularly helpful for open-access, which is
needed for 2,000,000 annual articles in 20,000 journals, which are
appearing as we speak. Open-access does not mean open-access a year or
many years later. That is not the way to maximize research impact.
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue28/minotaur/

> 5. Strengthening of fair dealing provisions in international copyright
> agreements and directives, national laws, and publishing contracts and
> licences to ensure unhindered access by other researchers and the
> general public.

Fair dealing is not specific to give-away refereed research, and it will
not solve the problem of open access:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5.2

> 6. Assurance of the availability to all peoples of all scholarly
> literature and research documentation which has been designated by its
> authors to be made available through preprints, open access journals and
> archives, or other means.

At last we come to the point of open-access: It now remains to specify
the two means: BOAI-1 (self-archiving) and BOAI-2 (open-access
journals).
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml

> 7. Implementation of affordable mechanisms to enable access to scholarly
> literature and research documentation by the peoples of developing
> nations and all who experience information inequality including the
> disabled and otherwise disadvantaged.

Again this is too general, not specific to open-access, and seems to
apply to the older initiatives for lower-toll access. Nor is the
open-access problem unique to developing nations: Open access is needed
for all would-be users, everywhere, whose access to refereed research is
blocked by access-tolls.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2171.html

> 8. Inclusion of provisions in law, contracts and licences to ensure
> preservation in perpetuity of all scholarly literature and research
> documentation in libraries and archives in formats and under conditions
> which will ensure enduring availability and usability.

Preservation is another worthy general digital-library issue,
but not relevant to the specific cause of open-access:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#1.Preservation

> 9. Operation of effective systems by libraries and publishers to ensure
> the preservation in perpetuity of all scholarly literature and research
> documentation with authenticity and continuing usability guaranteed.

Far more important (for immediate open access) are effective systems by
libraries for generating open access for their own institutional
research output (by self-archiving it).
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do

Note that Open Access might also extend to some esoteric research
monographs with no market and likewise written for research impact rather
than royalty income:

"What About the Author Self-Archiving of Books?"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0450.html
"Journal Papers vs. Books: The Direct/Indirect Income Trade-off"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0317.html
"University Library Publishing"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0930.html
"Death of the Book"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2807.html
    Harnad, S., Varian, H. & Parks, R. (2000) Academic publishing in the
    online era: What Will Be For-Fee And What Will Be For-Free? Culture
    Machine 2 (Online Journal)
http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/Cmach/Backissues/j002/Articles/art_harn.htm
http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/17/00/index.html
Stevan Harnad

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

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

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

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

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

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

the SPARC position paper and resources on institutional repositories:
    http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=m0

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

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





RE: [BOAI] Re: Draft IFLA Manifesto on Open Access

From: "Downes, Stephen" <Stephen.Downes AT nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:48:04 -0500


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Draft IFLA Manifesto on Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

Hiya,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk] 

> It is highly desirable and commendable to be committed to the 
> widest possible access to information. But in order to 
> promote *open access* it is essential to be far more specific 
> about the *nature* of the information. In particular, the 
> IFLA Manifesto is doomed to fail and to be ignored if it does 
> not make a specific and explicit distinction between 
> information that its creator *does* wish to give away, and 
> information its creator does *not* wish to give away. (Notice 
> that I said *creator* and not *publisher*.) 
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.1

I find this objection somewhat odd.

Libraries legally acquire information - this is manifest in the third point
of the declaration. They then loan this material free of charge to people 
who wish to read it. This has been the function of libraries for decades.

The objection stated above seems to imply that this direction has been
misguided, and that libraries should provide access to information only
if the creator of the content sanctions this use.

Why should a creator obtain this new right? Why should the historical
function of the library now be limited? How could the declaration be 
considered "doomed to failure" when it is, at heart, reflective of a
library's traditional practice?

It could be argued - and I would argue - that content creators do not
a priori own all possible rights associated with a work. There are limits
on such rights, a tacit recognition that the creation is a product not
only of the author but also of the history and culture of the society
in which it was produced.

There is a specific need, which libraries fulfill, to ensure that at the
very least *access* - if not ownership - to information, any information,
is made available to all members of a society, regardless of income. Even
the most expensive journal may now be acquired by any library and thereby
read by any person at no cost whatsoever to the reader. Why should this 
change?

I think that this is what the declaration is trying to express. And I do
not think it is an unreasonable goal. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Stephen Downes ~ Senior Researcher ~ National Research Council Canada
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
http://www.downes.ca stephen AT downes.ca 
stephen.downes AT nrc.ca http://www.iit.nrc.ca/e-learning.html
Subscribe to my free daily newsletter featuring news and articles 
about online knowledge, learning, community
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/website/subscribe.cgi 
or read it at http://www.downes.ca/news/OLDaily.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-


[BOAI] Re: Draft IFLA Manifesto on Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:49:04 +0100 (BST)


Threading: RE: [BOAI] Re: Draft IFLA Manifesto on Open Access from Stephen.Downes AT nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
      • This Message

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Downes, Stephen wrote:

>sh> From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk] 
> 
>sh> It is highly desirable and commendable to be committed to the 
>sh> widest possible access to information. But in order to 
>sh> promote *open access* it is essential to be far more specific 
>sh> about the *nature* of the information. In particular, the 
>sh> IFLA Manifesto is doomed to fail and to be ignored if it does 
>sh> not make a specific and explicit distinction between 
>sh> information that its creator *does* wish to give away, and 
>sh> information its creator does *not* wish to give away. (Notice 
>sh> that I said *creator* and not *publisher*.) 
>sh> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.1
> 
> I find this objection somewhat odd.
> 
> Libraries legally acquire information - this is manifest in the third 
point
> of the declaration. They then loan this material free of charge to people 
> who wish to read it. This has been the function of libraries for decades.
> 
> The objection stated above seems to imply that this direction has been
> misguided, and that libraries should provide access to information only
> if the creator of the content sanctions this use.

Not at all. The objection above simply points out that *Open Access* is
not the same as -- and should not be conflated with -- *Fair Use*. Fair
Use is a 3rd-party matter, involving libraries (and users), not authors
(1st party), nor even publishers (2nd party, although they are of course
part of the negotations). Open Access, in contrast, is a 1st-party
matter: It is *authors* who are giving away their refereed research in
order to maximize its usage and impact. Fair Use covers far more of the
literature, much of it not consisting of author give-aways at all.

Please see the definition of "open access" in the BOAI initiative to 
see
how it differs from "fair use" or "fair dealing."
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5.2

Open Access and Fair Use are not altogether orthogonal, in the sense
that both are concerned with trying to maximize access and usage -- but
there the resemblance (so far superficial and uninformative) stops. It
is in the differences and the details that a coherent agenda for Open
Access (not Fair Use) emerges. To conflate the two would simply make the
IFLA Open Access Manifesto incoherent and ineffectual. (If the IFLA also
has a Fair Use Manifesto, it should make it separately! Fair Use is not
only not the same as Open Access, it applies to a different corpus. And
indeed for Open Access materials, Fair Use is moot -- because free public
online access trumps 3rd-party fair use.)

> Why should a creator obtain this new right? Why should the historical
> function of the library now be limited? How could the declaration be 
> considered "doomed to failure" when it is, at heart, reflective 
of a
> library's traditional practice?

Why whould the author of a book have the right to say he would rather
not make it freely accessible to everyone online? I think I will have
to let authors speak for themselves on that matter.

> It could be argued - and I would argue - that content creators do not
> a priori own all possible rights associated with a work. There are limits
> on such rights, a tacit recognition that the creation is a product not
> only of the author but also of the history and culture of the society
> in which it was produced.

This all sounds fine if stated in this abstract way, but let's be more
specific about it: There is this brilliant paragraph that I could write,
and people would like to read, and would be willing to pay to read. But
because of a "recognition that the creation is a product not only of the
author but also of the history and culture of the society in which it
was produced" I am allowed to try to sell it on paper, as always, but
it must be made openly accessible online, whether I like it or not,
even though this may well kill off *all* of its potential sales, and all
of my potential royalty income. 

My guess -- I am not an expert here, as nothing could be more remote from
the case of give-away refereed research, written only for research impact,
not royalty income, which is the only case on which I [or the BOAI] have
anything substantive to say -- my guess is that such a non-give-away
author, faced with the prospect of being unable to sell his paragraph
any more, would instead turn to another line of creative work if he
could, maybe making patent medicines: a line of creative work that
has not been declared to be part of the "collective cultural 
heritage"
simply in virtue of the fact that it is digital rather than analog.
http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/17/00/

> There is a specific need, which libraries fulfill, to ensure that at the
> very least *access* - if not ownership - to information, any information,
> is made available to all members of a society, regardless of income. Even
> the most expensive journal may now be acquired by any library and thereby
> read by any person at no cost whatsoever to the reader. Why should this 
> change?

But that is not called "Open Access," it is called
Toll-Access-Licensing. The library pays the license-tolls for access,
negotiated with publishers, usually as a function of the size of its
institutional readership.

If the IFLA has a Licensing Manifesto, it should make it separately,
possibly jointly with its Fair Use Manifesto; but certainly not its Open
Access Manifesto.

> I think that this is what the declaration is trying to express. And I do
> not think it is an unreasonable goal. 

Neither Fair Use nor Licensing is Open-Access.

Stevan Harnad

> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stephen Downes ~ Senior Researcher ~ National Research Council Canada
> Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
> http://www.downes.ca stephen AT downes.ca 
> stephen.downes AT nrc.ca http://www.iit.nrc.ca/e-learning.html
> Subscribe to my free daily newsletter featuring news and articles 
> about online knowledge, learning, community
> http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/website/subscribe.cgi 
> or read it at http://www.downes.ca/news/OLDaily.htm
> 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 and resources on institutional repositories:
    http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=m0

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

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



[BOAI] Powerpoints for Promoting Self-Archiving of Institutional Research Output

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 19:35:10 +0100 (BST)


Here are 37 powerpoints designed to explain and promote open access
through the self-archiving of institutional (peer-reviewed) research
output (BOAI-1). You are free to use or adapt some or all of them in
your own talks or papers:

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

Stevan Harnad

PS It would be helpful if someone could supplement the growth charts
with equivalent data from BOAI-2 (creating/converting open-access
journals). Those too should be on a per-paper basis, and extrapolated
into the future. The target is open-access to all 2,000,000 refereed
papers appearing annually in the planet's 20,000 refereed journals.


[BOAI] Re: Distinguishing the Essentials from the Optional Add-Ons

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 15:54:11 +0100 (BST)


The following is a response to comments by G.F. Humphrey, University of Sydney
which appeared in The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
(paper edition) on 19 March 2003, Page 038. The comments are on my
article, which appeared there 12 March:
on http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html

> Part of [Harnad's] solution is the relegation of publishers to the task of
> peer review, their funding being from the universities whose members
> provide the papers. The universities would save two-thirds of the cost
> of journal subscriptions.

My solution (to the problem research impact needlessly lost because of
toll-gated access) is the self-archiving of all peer-reviewed research in
each researcher's institutional Eprint Archives, to maximize its access
to would-be users, and thereby maximize its usage and impact. 

Whether and when journal publishers must downsize to becoming peer-review
service-providers depends on whether and when the market for their
other services and add-ons (paper version, publisher's PDF, mark-up,
citation-linking) shrinks to the point where it can no longer sustain
the essential cost of peer review. No one
knows either whether or when that will happen
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1
but meanwhile research access and impact will already have been maximized
by self-archiving.
    "Distinguishing the Essentials from the Optional Add-Ons"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1437.html

> Unfortunately, the universities would also have to fund copy editing

That depends on whether copy-editing turns out to be part of the
essentials. If so, it can be wrapped into the peer-review service cost.
But it is not clear that the rather low level of copy-editing being
practised by many journals today (mostly just "which-hunting") is an
added value at all. Reference-checking (using the full, interoperable,
open-access database) will become increasingly automated with the entire
refereed literature openly accessible online, as will format-checking. And
some XML markup will no doubt soon be part of authoring tools, as html
already is today.

> No specific indication was given as to how this knowledge (hopefully peer
> reviewed) is to come about.

We are talking about peer-reviewed journal articles. Whether they are
on-paper or on-line, toll-access or open-access, has nothing to do with
whether they are correct or not. This is a red herring -- or an
inadvertent conflation of pre-peer-review preprints with peer-reviewed
postprints. Self-archiving is recommended for both, but which is which
is clearly tagged on-line, just as it was on-paper. The main purpose
of the self-archiving is open access to all peer-reviewed postprints.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#What-self-archive

> "Researchers are paid to do research but not to report it." 
> Incorrect. Research is not complete until it is published. Salary
> and expenses continue during the writing period. 

G.F. Humphrey has misunderstood this point. Of course researchers are
paid (by their institutions) to publish or perish. That is what research
impact (and the motivation for maximizing it through open access) is all
about. The point was that they do not get paid royalties or fees by
their *publishers* in exchange for the sale of their work, as most other
writers do.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.2

> Further, grant agencies base allocations on publishing history, partly
> since, as Harnad says, research input is measured by counting how many
> researchers use and cite the work.

But once again, the point is being missed: That impact-income (shall we
call it) is not coming from publisher toll-income. On the contrary, the
toll-gating of the author's give-away work is *diminishing* impact
income!

> Agencies significantly measure the worth of papers according to
> journal reputation. This criterion would not be available if an author's
> university were employing the group doing the peer reviews. It would
> be better if the universities employed autonomous scientific bodies to
> arrange peer reviews -- for example, the academies.

Again, the article has been misread. There is no proposal to cease
publishing in exactly the same peer-reviewed journals that researchers
are publishing in today. The proposal to self-archive peer-reviewed
research is not a vanity-press or in-house peer-reviewing proposal!
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.4 
The proposal is merely to self-archive the peer-reviewed paper itself
too, to make it open-access (for all the would-be users worldwide whose
institutions cannot afford the access-tolls).
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml

In addition, it is merely pointed out in passing that if and when the
cost of paying for the implementation of the peer-review alone can no
longer be covered from the access-toll-revenues (paid currently by
institutions for access to the *incoming* peer-reviewed research from
*other* institutions), it can easily be covered out of only a portion
of the annual institutional windfall toll-savings, in the form of a
service charge (paid to the [autonomous] publisher, as now) for
implementing the peer-review of each institution's own *outgoing*
research.

> "Research papers are similar to advertisements -- they bring 
rewards."
> Yes, often, but they usually bring justified adverse criticism, sometimes
> exposure of authors as frauds, and nearly always attract review changes.

All true, but not relevant, as the proposal is not to alter
peer-review but to maximize access, and hence visibility, usage, and
impact. (Open-access also maximizes the self-corrective feedback cycles,
supplementing peer review; Dr. Humphrey, who has published on the
detection of research fraud, should welcome this!)

> Further, the advertiser pays to get publication; never so the researcher,
> although occasionally the research grant pays page charges.

The statement was that peer-reviewed publications are *similar* to
advertisements, not that they are *identical* to them. Advertisements
are not peer-reviewed either; nor are researchers advertising a
product or service for sale. The point was that just as it would be
counter-productive to toll-gate *access* to advertisements, written to
maximize sales impact, it is counter-productive to toll-gate access to
peer-reviewed research, written to maximize research impact.

> Fortunately, we are later told that there has to be peer review. So
> just to [self-archive all research] would have to involve an academy,
> copy editing and a university publications committee.

This is the same misreading as before. The proposal is to self-archive
all peer-reviewed research; the peer-review continues to be implemented
by the autonomous journals, as it always was. 

> With smaller incomes, publishers (that is, profit-making companies) might
> need higher profit ratios on the diminished incomes, thus increasing
> costs to perhaps one-half.

This is of course all hypothetical. What is actual (and tried and true)
is that open-access can be attained right now, through self-archiving.
Whether and when this will diminish publishers' toll-incomes, and what
can then be done to cut costs and cover the essentials (peer-review
service-provision) is a matter of speculation. But even if it were to turn
out that peer-review costs half of the current toll-revenue per article,
rather than under one-third (as I and many others have estimated), that's
still cheaper, still only half of the windfall toll-savings, hence
still affordable by institutions, and the reward is still open access and
maximized impact. Hence this is no argument against self-archiving, nor
for access/impact-blocking tolls.

> "Every journal has a paper edition and an online edition." Only 
some
> do and there is a user charge for online.

I should have said "just about every journal." (Certainly all the
biggest and most important ones do). And it is the user (access-toll)
charge that this is all about, whether on-paper or online.

> Electronic publishing is well-established. It is slowly replacing hard
> copy. It will replace hard copy in a decade, except when high-class
> illustrations are needed. Nevertheless, there are many questions to
> be resolved. It is certainly a boon for researchers. No more grubbing
> around in the library!

Electronic publishing is a foregone conclusion. Hard-copies will be
user-generated until/unless on-screen reading is much improved (but
searching and browsing are infinitely better on-screen). That is the
old news, however. The new news is that access-toll-barriers (for
author-give-away writing, of which peer-reviewed research is the most
important example), and the potential usage and access they block,
are no longer necessary in the online era, and their negative effects
can already be eliminated through self-archiving.

Stevan Harnad


[BOAI] Metalist of open access archives (fwd)

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 22:03:51 +0100 (BST)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:29:27 +0100
From: Steve Hitchcock <sh94r AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: SEPTEMBER98-FORUM AT LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Metalist of open access archives

    Core metalist of open access eprint archives 
    http://opcit.eprints.org/archive-core-metalist.html

    Available soon:
    Metalist of open access eprint archives: the genesis
    of institutional archives and independent services
    http://opcit.eprints.org/archive-metalist.html

    "This is not a list of individual open access archives of full-text
    research papers, but instead lists and comments on other lists of
    individual archives. This list and its categorisation gives a broad
    overview of the structure, size and progress of full-text open access
    eprint archives.

    "This list will be maintained and updated as far as is possible,
    and is intended to assist further quantitative research on the open
    access eprint phenomenon for those who want to measure the growth
    and quality of open access eprint archives."

Steve Hitchcock, Southampton University
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note added by moderator:

Data on the numbers and growth of eprint archives of various kinds are
available in figures 15-25 of the powerpoint series of 37 in:

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm


[BOAI] Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing. Part I

From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <gerrymck AT iastate.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:24:40 -0500


                  Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing.  
               Part I: Individual and Institutional Initiatives

    I am proud to announce the publication of the first of a three-part series 
on "Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing" in _Library Hi Tech 
News_: 

Gerry McKiernan (2003) "Scholar-based Innovations in Publishing. Part I: 
Individual and Institutional Initiatives," _Library Hi Tech News_ Vol. 20 
No. 2 (March), pp. 19-26 

    Among the initiatives profiled in this first part are:
 
*Individual*
arXiv.org  http://xxx.arXiv.cornell.edu )
CogPrints (http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/) [DOWN?]
RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) (http://repec.org/ ) 

*Institutional*

eScholarship Repository (University of California)
   (http://repositories.cdlib.org/escholarship/)

Glasgow ePrints Service (http://eprints.lib.gla.ac.uk/)

Knowledge Bank (Ohio State University)
  ( http://www.lib.ohio-state.edu/Lib_Info/scholarcom/KBproposal.html )

   Part II in the series is devoted to Library and Professional initiatives and 

scheduled to be published in the next issue of LHTN (20(3). The manuscript for 
Part III was submitted earlier today and is scheduled for publication in LHTN 
20(5).

   Part I is also now available electronically  for subscribers to LHTN via 
Emerald:

  ( http://www.emeraldinsight.com/vl=1/cl=3/nw=1/rpsv/lhtn.htm )

   Enjoy!

/Gerry 

Gerry McKiernan
Associate Professor 
and 
Science and Technology Librarian and Bibliographer
Iowa State University 
Ames IA 50011

            "The Best Way To Predict the Future is to Invent It"
                                                              Alan Kay




[BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 13:13:20 +0100 (BST)


Threading:      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output from lqthede AT apk.net

I hope the following exchange will be helpful to those universities
that are currently drafting and implementing institutional/departmental
self-archiving policies: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/archpol.html
It concerns the degree to which the metadata of deposits are checked
before they appear publicly in the eprint archive.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, [identity deleted] wrote:

> Entering data on a particular day [does] not result in that data 
> becoming immediately available. There appears to be a serious problem 
> with the data processing.
> 
> According to my "user area homepage", I have three items pending 
- one 
> from 13th March and 2 from 28th March! Why is it necessary for 4 or more 
> weeks to elapse before entries that I make can be added to the database? 
> This *is* a *software* problem. If the reason is that I have not 
> completed the entry properly, that is still a *software* problem because 
> I don't know what I haven't done correctly - there are no error messages.

This is most definitely *not* a software problem but a human factor
problem! The delay in the appearance of your data is 100% a function of
the fact that the vetting of the deposits is not being done promptly --
by a designated human being.

I know this for a fact. I have been performing, myself, that vetting
function for CogPrints -- a public central archive rather than
a local departmentla/institutional archive -- for 6 years now, as
the designated vettor. As soon as a paper is deposited, it is in the
submission buffer. I, as vettor, can immediately review the metadata,
and then OK the deposit, within 1 minute, if I am at the helm. With an
average of 5 deposits per week, this has been no problem. (If the load
ever gets bigger, I can recruit additional designated vettors, but the
OAI and distributed institutional archiving have evolved since the
founding of CogPrints, and that is likely to distribute the load more
sensibly than central archiving, once self-archiving picks up
momentum, with each research self-archiving in his own departmental
archive.)

The (human) resources for either (1) prompt, careful, group-based vetting
of the metadata by designated vettors in each research group, or (2) no
vetting of the metadata and automatic acceptance of the deposits
*must* be part of any departmental self-archiving policy. Without it,
discouraging delays and misunderstandings of the kind you describe
are inevitable. But they have nothing whatsoever to do with either the
software or the principle (and benefits) of departmental self-archiving
of all refereed research output.

Just as the deposit of a single paper is only the matter of a few
keystrokes and a few minutes of time (meaning that the self-archiving of
*all* the research output [including the retrospective legacy output]
of even the most prolific of departmental researchers represents no more
than a few man-hours -- a tiny investment for a huge return, especially
with the help of the "cloning" feature that automatically repeats all
metadata that are common to all or many papers, making redundant re-entry
unnecessary), so the vetting of each single paper is a matter of still
fewer keystrokes and minutes of time. All that is needed is a designated
vettor available to reliably vet that day's deposits -- plus a one-time,
start-up corps of vettors who will process the legacy data.

The calculation of the number of man-hours required, both for any
department's legacy data and for the ongoing future daily research output
per group can easily be done, and it will be found to be ludicrously
small, especially for the size of the benefits it will confer on us all:
http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/

But that calculation must be done, as an essential part of any
departmental self-archiving policy. And a decision has to be made as
to whether the department or institution will (1) resource rigorous
vetting per group, or they prefer to (2) have deposits immediately appear
automatically.

(Option (2) is not a great risk, as the Eprints software itself makes
sure that certain obligatory fields are filled, the depositor himself
can review his own data, and if/when later metadata errors are discovered, the
depositor can correct them. The vetting capability we provided with the
Eprints software was originally modelled on that of the Physics ArXiv,
which receives 3500 deposits per month, from all over the world, in
one central archive in which no individual or institutional interests
are vested. But any local departmental archive -- once the legacy data
are in there -- will have monthly deposit frequencies equal to that
department's monthly output in research papers. I think one vettor per
research group could easily set aside the few minutes per day that it
would take to keep up with checking the metadata for his group's daily
deposits [option (1)], but if that resource is not available I suggest
having the deposit accepted automatically [option (2)] as a far preferable
(and not very risky) alternative to having it sit for a month in a
submission buffer with no designated vettor to check and accept it.)

To repeat, this is a departmental archive policy matter, not an archive
software matter. It is regrettable that in this case the practise seems
to have been allowed to precede thinking the policy through and choosing
between (1) or (2), thereby creating needless misunderstandings about
the software and the principle, but this can easily be remedied now,
and all researchers alerted. Such are the advantages of implementing
a research archive at departmental scale -- and of the small (indeed
trivial) nature of the policy problem in question.

Stevan Harnad


Re: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

From: Linda Thede <lqthede AT apk.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:05:52 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

Could someone please tell me what the "ECS" stands for in the
"ECS Research Self Archiving Policy?"

Thanks.

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




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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .