Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] filariasis.net - open access to the lymphatic filariasis knowledge base

From: Michael Brown <m.brown AT liverpool.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 17:08:46 +0100


Dear All,

filariasis.net - Open access to the lymphatic filariasis knowledge  
base...

Commonly known as elephantiasis, Lymphatic Filariasis (LF) is caused by  
thread-like parasitic worms that live in the human lymphatic system. It  
is one of the world's most disfiguring and debilitating parasitic  
diseases. Over 120 million people are afflicted in 83 countries, with  
20% of the world's population (1.2 billion people) living at risk of  
the disease. It is a major cause and consequence of poverty, preventing  
those afflicted from living a normal working & social life. Recently,  
advances in our understanding of the disease and the availability of  
safe preventative drug treatments, and new approaches to alleviation of  
existing symptoms has created an optimism in the scientific and public  
health community that at last the disease can be eliminated as a public  
health problem. This task will be accomplished by a global partnership,  
the Global Alliance for the Elimination of Lymphatic Filariasis  
(http://www.filariasis.org/), who's formation was catalysed by "the  
biggest single act of corporate philanthropy in any industry" - the  
donation by GlaxoSmithKline of Albendazole, (one of the core drugs  
needed to eliminate this disease), to the programme for as long as it  
is needed. The Alliance is composed of the ministries of health of the  
endemic countries, the World Health Organization, GlaxoSmithKline,  
Merck & Co. Inc., the Lymphatic Filariasis Support Centre at the  
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and tens of other academic and  
research institutes and Non-Governmental Development Organizations.

By eliminating this disease we will prevent the next generation of  
children being infected & subsequently afflicted.

Education and training will play a key role in the success of such an  
elimination programme, and therefore, the Liverpool Lymphatic  
Filariasis Support Centre has developed an online knowledge base on  
lymphatic filariasis, (http://www.filariasis.net), which provides  
global, free and open access to the most up-to-date teaching and  
learning resources on this disease, and the programme to eliminate it.

For more information on filariasis.net please see Issue 1 of our  
newsletter below.

Best wishes,

Mike

> Dear Colleague,
>
> Welcome to issue 1 (May 2003) of filariasis.net Newsletter.
>
> Before we begin, just a quick note to say if you would like to keep
> receiving the monthly filariasis.net Newsletter please reply to
> m.brown AT liv.ac.uk with the subject "Subscribe filariasis.net  
> Newsletter".
> If you don't want to receive any further issues you don't need to do
> anything - you will be removed from this list automatically.
>
> So what is filariasis.net?
>
> filariasis.net - http://www.filariasis.net/ - is a web site dedicated  
> to
> providing free and open access to the lymphatic filariasis knowledge  
> base
> (developed by Mike Brown - m.brown AT liv.ac.uk - at the Liverpool  
> Lymphatic
> Filariasis Support Centre).
>
> What is available on filariasis.net?
>
> The article library is now available which includes original  
> peer-reviewed
> research articles and reviews (available as PDFs) from journals such as
> the American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, Annals of 
Tropical
> Medicine & Parasitology, Parasitology, Science and Filaria Journal 
(see
> below for information on the newest content). Over the next few weeks  
> and
> months the site will be expanded extensively with more articles, and  
> the
> Learning Centre will open it's doors with teaching and learning  
> resources
> on all aspects of lymphatic filariasis (- I'll have more news to share
> with you on these developments in issue 2 - so subscribe!).
>
> And finally...
>
> I would just like to say thanks to all my colleagues, journals,  
> publishers
> and organizations that have helped made filariasis.net a reality,
> especially...
>
> The American Journal of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Annals of 
Tropical
> Medicine & Parasitology & Maney Publishing, Bill & Melinda 
Gates
> Foundation, Department for International Development and  
> GlaxoSmithKline.
>
> Until next month...
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mike
>
> (P.S. please pass this e-mail on to colleagues you feel maybe  
> interested
> in filariasis.net)
>
> =================================================================
>
> This month on filariasis.net...
>
> - Article Library
>
> 1) Supplement: The elimination of lymphatic filariasis: Public health
> challenges and the role of vector control
> http://www.filariasis.net/article_library/supplements/ 
> atmp_2002_62_s2.html
>
> 2) Supplement: Controlling intestinal helminths while eliminating
> lymphatic filariasis
> http://www.filariasis.net/article_library/supplements/p_2000_121_s.html
>
> 3) A new insight into the pathogenesis of filarial disease (124KB pdf)
> http://www.filariasis.net/article_library/pdfs/cmm/2002/ 
> cmm_2002_2_299.pdf
>
> 4) The role of endosymbiotic Wolbachia bacteria in the pathogenesis of
> River blindness
> http://www.filariasis.net/index.html
>
> 5) Antibiotics for the treatment of onchocerciasis and other filarial
> infections (112KB pdf)
> http://www.filariasis.net/article_library/pdfs/coiid/2002/ 
> coiid_2002_3_53
> 3.p df
>
> Browse Article Library
> http://www.filariasis.net/article_library/index.html
>
> - Filaria Journal:
>
> 1) Evidence against Wolbachia symbiosis in Loa loa (308KB pdf)
> http://www.filariasis.net/filaria_journal/pdfs/manuscripts/1475-2883- 
> 2-9.
> pdf
>
> 2) Impact of ivermectin on onchocerciasis transmission. Assessing the
> empirical evidence that repeated ivermectin mass treatments may lead to
> elimination/eradication in West-Africa (1.1MB pdf)
> http://www.filariasis.net/filaria_journal/pdfs/manuscripts/1475-2883- 
> 2-8.
> pdf
>
> 3) Mapping of lymphatic filariasis in Nepal (856KB pdf)
> http://www.filariasis.net/filaria_journal/pdfs/manuscripts/1475-2883- 
> 2-7.
> pdf
>
> 4) Human immune responses to infective stage larval-specific chitinase  
> of
> filarial parasite, Onchocerca volvulus, Ov-CHI-1 (456KB pdf)
> http://www.filariasis.net/filaria_journal/pdfs/manuscripts/1475-2883- 
> 2-6.
> pdf
>
> 5) Some observations on the effect of Daflon (micronized purified
> flavonoid fraction of Rutaceae aurantiae) in bancroftian filarial
> lymphoedema (284KB pdf)
> http://www.filariasis.net/filaria_journal/pdfs/manuscripts/1475-2883- 
> 2-5.
> pdf
>
> 6) Lymphoedema: Pathophysiology and Management in resource poor  
> Settings
> relevance for lymphatic filariasis control programmes (256KB pdf)
> http://www.filariasis.net/filaria_journal/pdfs/manuscripts/1475-2883- 
> 2-4.
> pdf
>
> Browse Filaria Journal mirror site
> http://www.filariasis.net/filaria_journal/index.html
>
> =================================================================
>
> - Submissions
>
> Send all submissions, be it a resource you want to make available, an  
> idea
> for a resource and/or news & event information to m.brown AT 
liv.ac.uk.
>
> - Feedback
>
> We welcome your feedback on any aspect of filariasis.net. Please tell  
> us
> what you like, and what you dislike. As usual the address is
> m.brown AT liv.ac.uk
>
> - Subscribing to filariasis.net Newsletter
>
> To subscribe send an e-mail to m.brown AT liv.ac.uk, with the subject
> "Subscribe filariasis.net Newsletter"
>
> - Unsubscribing from filariasis.net Newsletter
>
> To unsubscribe send an e-mail to  m.brown AT liv.ac.uk, with the subject
> "Unsubscribe filariasis.net Newsletter". You will be removed  
> immediately
> from the list.
>
> - Privacy
>
> n: the quality of being secluded from the presence or view of others.
>
> Your e-mail address will only be used to send you information from
> filariasis.net.
>
> =================================================================
>
> filariasis.net - Open access to the lymphatic filariasis knowledge base
>
> http://www.filariasis.net/


[BOAI] Re: Directory of Open Access Journals

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:41:39 +0100 (BST)


On Tue, 20 May 2003, Pirkko Pietilainen wrote:

> The EZB of Uni Regensburg has a directory of about 4 300
> open access journals evaluated collectively by 213 libraries and
> research centers:
> http://rzblx1.uni-regensburg.de/ezeit/fl.phtml?bibid=UBR
> What is the difference?

The difference is that the 350 Lund-indexed journals are all
peer-reviewed whereas the much bigger Regensburg index includes
many non-peer-reviewed journals, magazines and newsletter:

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2522.html

The Lund index is not yet complete, but 340 is far closer to the
current number of peer-reviewed journals than the Regensburg figure.

Stevan Harnad




[BOAI] Re: EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 13:57:43 +0100 (BST)


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: EPrints, DSpace or ESpace? from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

    Publish or Perish: Self-Archive to Flourish

              Stevan Harnad

It is becoming apparent that our main challenge is not creating
institutional repositories, but creating policies and incentives for
filling them.

Universities' "publish or perish" policies are intended to encourage
and reward researchers for doing research and for making their findings
public to all would-be users. It is a natural extension of "publish or
perish" to encourage and reward researchers for maximizing the impact of
their research output by maximizing would-be user access to it.

An article on how this can be done through national and university
research accessibility and assessability policies (with the UK as a model)
will appear in THES Friday, June 6. It will be a condensed version of the
following short article:

    "Enhance UK research impact and assessment by making the RAE 
webmetric"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/thes.html

The institutional-repository movement would also benefit greatly
from clearly separating the 5 quasi-independent aims that currently
constitute its very mixed agenda. All 5 aims are worthwhile and important,
but only the first is urgent, and it is the heart of the challenge for
filling institutional with university research output for the sake of
maximizing its impact by maximizing access to it:

The 5 distinct aims for institutional repositories

    I. (RES) self-archiving institutional research output (preprints,
    postprints and theses)

    II. (MAN) digital collection management (all kinds of digital content)
    
    III. (PRES) digital preservation (all kinds of digital content)
    
    IV. (TEACH) online teaching materials

    V. (EPUB) electronic publication (journals and books)

As long as we keep blurring or mixing these 5 distinct aims, the first
and by far the most pressing of them -- the filling of university eprint
archives with all university research output, pre- and post-peer-review,
in order to maximize its impact through open access -- will be needlessly
delayed (and so will any eventual relief from the university serials
budget crisis).

Perhaps the two most counterproductive of the conflations among these
five distinct aims has been that between I and III (research
self-archiving, RES, and digital preservation, PRES) and that between
I and V (research self-archiving, RES, and electronic publication,
EPUB).

The RES/PRES mix-up, much discussed in the American Scientist Forum,
can easily be seen to be a needless and misleading conflation when we
recall that insofar as the peer-reviewed research literature is
concerned, the current preservation burden is on its primary corpus,
which is the published literature (online and on paper). The much-needed
filling of university research-output archives is a *supplement* to this
primary corpus, for the purpose of maximizing its impact by maximizing
access to it; it is not a *substitute* for it. It is simply a mistake
and a needless retardant on the filling of the university to imply that
there are preservation problems to solve before they can be filled.

The RES/EPUB mix-up is really two mixups. The first is the conflation of
self-archiving with self-publishing: The urgent archive-filling challenge,
RES, concerns the self-archiving of peer-reviewed, *published* research
output. Again, it is a *supplement* to publication, for the purpose of
maximizing its impact by maximizing access to it; it is not a *substitute*
for it.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.4

The second RES/EPUB mix-up has to do with university e-publishing
ambitions (perhaps along the lines of High-Wire Press-wannabes!). It is
fine to have these ambitions, but they should not be conflated in any
way with the completely independent and urgent aim of self-archiving
the university's peer-reviewed, *published* research output.

Most of this is discussed in the thread:

    "EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2670.html

This is also the source of the slowness in archive-filling
lamented by Michael Day in the article below. The remedy,
again, is clearly distinguishing RES from any other institutional
repository aims, and drafting national and institutional research
self-archiving policies and incentives, as soon and as systematically
as possible.

    http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-uk/docs/studies/impact/
    Michael Day, Prospects for institutional e-print repositories
    in the United Kingdom, a paper from the ePrints UK project.
    http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-uk/ Abstract: "This study
    introduces ePrints UK, a project funded as part of the JISC's Focus
    on Access to Institutional Resources (FAIR) Programme. It first
    introduces the project and the main features of the FAIR programme
    as it relates to e-print repositories. Then it provides some general
    information on open-access principles, institutional repositories
    and the technical developments that have made their development
    viable. There follows a review of relevant repositories in the UK
    and an indication of what impact ePrints UK might have in supporting
    learning, teaching and research. This is followed by a discussion of
    perceived impediments to the take-up of institutional repositories,
    including both practical and cultural issues. A final section
    investigates the development of ongoing evaluation criteria for
    the project."  Source: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html

See: "Enhance UK research impact and assessment by making the RAE 
webmetric"
      http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/thes.html

Stevan Harnad



[BOAI] THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:17:36 +0100 (BST)


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

The brief article (full-text below) appears today, Friday June 6, 2003
in the Times Higher Education Supplement. 
	Toll access: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y5DE124D4
	Toll-free access to fuller versions, with links:
		http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/thes.html  and
		http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/theshort.html
 
	"Why I believe that all UK research output should be online"
			Stevan Harnad

Unlike journalists or book authors, researchers receive no royalties or
fees for their writings. They write for "research impact", the sum of
all the effects of their work on the work of others and on the society
that funds it. So how research is read, used, cited and built on in
further research and applications needs to be measured.  

One natural way to measure research impact would be to adopt the
approach of the web search engine Google. Google measures the importance
of a website. It does this by rank-ordering search results according to
how many other websites link to them: the more links, the higher the
rank. This works amazingly well, but it is far too crude for measuring
research impact, which is about how much a paper is being used by other
researchers. There is, however, a cousin of web links that researchers
have been using for decades as a measure of impact: citations.

Citations reference the building blocks that a piece of research uses to
make its own contribution to knowledge. The more often a paper is used
as a building block, the higher its research impact. Citation counts are
powerful measures of impact. One study has shown that in the field of
psychology, citation counts predict the outcome of the research
assessment exercise with an accuracy of more than 80 per cent.

The RAE involves ranking all departments in all universities by their
research impact and then funding them accordingly. Yet it does not count
citations. Instead, it requires universities to spend vast amounts of
time compiling dossiers of all sorts of performance indicators. Then
still more time and effort is expended by teams of assessors assessing
and ranking all the dossiers.

In many cases, citation counts alone would save at least 80 per cent of
all that time and effort. But the Google-like idea also suggests ways to
do even better, enriching citation counts by another measure of impact:
how often a paper is read. Web "hits" (downloads) predict citations 
that
will come later. To be used and cited, a paper first has to be accessed
and read. And downloads are also usage (and hence impact) measures in
their own right.

Google also uses "hubs" and "authorities" to weight link 
counts. Not all
links are equal. It means more to be linked to by a high-link site than
a low-link site. This is the exact equivalent to co-citation analysis,
in which it matters more if you are cited by a Nobel laureate than by a
new postdoc.

What this new world of webmetrics needs to be mined and used to
encourage and reward research is not a four-yearly exercise in
paperwork. All university research output should be continuously
accessible and hence assessable online: not only the references cited
but the full text. Then computer programs can be used to extract a whole
spectrum of impact indicators, adjustable for any differences between
disciplines.

Nor are time-saving, efficiency, power and richness of these webmetric
impact indicators their only or even principal benefits. For the
citation counts of papers whose full texts are already freely accessible
on the web are more than 300 per cent higher than those that are not. So
all of UK research stands to increase its impact dramatically by being
put online. Every researcher should have a standardised electronic CV,
continuously updated with all the RAE performance indicators listed and
every journal paper linked to its full-text in that university's online
"eprint" archive. Webmetric assessment engines can do all the rest.

At Southampton University, we have designed (free) software for creating
the RAE CVs and eprint archives along with citebase, a webmetric engine
that analyses citations and downloads. The only thing still needed is a
national policy of self-archiving all research output to enhance and
assess its impact.

Details: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad


[BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:56:00 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 [identity removed] wrote:

> > The brief article, Friday June 6, 2003,
> > in the Times Higher Education Supplement.
> >                 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/theshort.html
> > In Ariadne 35,  http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ Harnad 
writes:
> >       The Funding Councils should mandate that in order to be 
eligible
> >       for Research Assessment and funding, all UK research-active
> >       university staff must maintain (I) a standardised online 
RAE-CV,
> >       including all designated RAE performance indicators, chief 
among
> >       them being (II) the full text of every refereed research paper,
> >       publicly self-archived in the university's online Eprint 
Archive
> >       and linked to the CV for online harvesting, scientometric 
analysis
> >       and assessment.
> 
> How will this affect people who move (a) between industry and 
> academia, and (b) between countries?  It sounds to me as if it would
> work only for people who stay all their life in the place they were born.

Institutional Eprint Archives are OAI-compliant:
http://www.openarchives.org/. That means they are all interoperable. One
continues to get credit for one's publications even when one changes
employment. And all research institutions, not just universities,
are encouraged to create institutional Eprint Archives to maximize the
impact of their research publications. The only institutions to which
this would not apply would be those that do not publish their research
output at all. (There, for the researcher contemplating transfering
to a university, "publish or perish" is the familiar rule to 
consider;
self-archiving is merely to maximize the impact of published research. For
unpublished research, nolo contendere -- though if there are other forms
of quantifiable performance indicators for such unpublished industrial
research, they could certainly be listed in the researcher's standardized
online CV http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi which can
also be made OAI-compliant and interoperable with all other such CVs
and CV-assessors.)

> Or does "every refereed research paper" only mean those papers 
written
> under the councils' funding?  I absolutely agree that as long as they
> pay, they can (and should) set the rules.

It means every refereed paper, whether council-funded or not. The
research-funders are in a position to mandate not only the publishing
of the research output, but the maximizing of its impact. So are the
researcher's employers (particularly as they are the co-beneficiaries
of both the research funding and the research impact). It is merely a
natural extension of the existing carrot/stick system we call "publish
or perish" to "publish with maximal impact."

> I personally think the issue should address the individual interest
> ("how you can improve your academic career") rather than 
centralized
> regulation ("the council should mandate...").

The main interest is of course that of research itself, and the reason
we conduct and fund it. But the interests of an individual research
career depend on employment and research-funding. So it all boils down
to the same thing. (There is nothing new here, as noted: Whatever was
"mandated" under the classical and uncontroversial 
"publish-or-perish"
rule is simply given a natural extension here into the online age:
If "publish" simply means "maximize user access to your 
peer-reviewed
research findings by publishing them in a paper journal" then its
natural PostGutenberg generalization is "maximize user access to your
peer-reviewed research findings by publishing them in a paper journal
*and* self-archive them online to make them openly accessible to all
would-be users and not just those whose institutions can afford the
access-tolls of the journal in which it is published." )

Or, for short: Publish with Maximal Access (= open access).
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/

Stevan Harnad


[BOAI] ALA/ALCTS SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONS DISCUSSION GROUP MEETING | June 23 |

From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <gerrymck AT iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 10:11:51 -0500


ALA ANNUAL TORONTO

DATE:  MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2003
TIME:   9:30-11:00
PLACE:  (MTCC) -METRO TORONTO CONVENTION CENTER, ROOM 206E

****************************************************************************


Come join our program and engage in a lively discussion on current scholarly
communications issues!

Our DG session will be led by:

Dr. Susan Martin, ACRL Visiting Program officer for Scholarly Communications
& President, SKM Associates, Inc., -  martin AT skmassociates.net 
<mailto:martin AT skmassociates.net>

Julia C. Bixrud,  Director of Information Services, ARL  & Assistant
Director, Public Programs, SPARC, - jblix AT arl.org <mailto:jblix AT 
arl.org>

Gerry McKiernan, Associate Professor, Science and Technology Librarian and
Bibliographer, Iowa State University,  - gerrymck AT iastate.edu 
<mailto:gerrymck AT iastate.edu>

**********************

Discover how new modes of research and initiatives within university
frameworks are revolutionizing access and distribution patterns; learn how
programs of scholarly advocacy, where academics serve as both creators and
consumers, are adopting new models while still retaining refereeing and
editorial standards are progressing; learn about SPARC's latest efforts to
provide support for extending access to scholarly literature; hear about the
impact of public policies and private enterprise on the availability of
scholarly information; become familiar with a variety of initiatives that
take advantage of the inherent potential of the Web and other digital
environments that offer open and enhanced access to the personal and
collective scholarship of individuals, organizations, and nations....

******************************************************************************
Opportunity for audience participation and reactions will be provided
during the Q&A period at the end of the program!

******************************************************************************

Co-Chair:  Michelle Sitko -Marywood University, Coordinator of Collection
Management Services/Serials - sitko AT es.marywood.edu 

Co-Chair:  Anne McKee -Greater Western Alliance (formerly Big 12 Plus
Libraries Consortium), Program Officer for Resource Sharing -
mckeea AT lindahall.org <mailto:mckeea AT lindahall.org>

Former Co-Chair:  Dr. Taemin K. Park, (Indiana University
Libraries-Bloomington)/IU SLIS Adjunct Faculty - park AT indiana.edu 
<mailto:park AT indiana.edu>

*******    ********  *********
Co-Vice Chair:  Carolyn K. Coates (Eastern Connecticut University)
-Acquisitions and Technical Services - coatesc AT easternct.edu 
<mailto:coatesc AT easternct.edu>

Co-Vice Chair:  Ann S. Doyle (University of Kentucky Libraries) - Serials
Acquisitions - asdoyl2 AT uky.edu <mailto:asdoyl2 AT uky.edu>






[BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 18:26:36 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from freemamh AT lavc.edu
             Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from peters AT earlham.edu
             Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from juliana AT tin.it

> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:19:45 +0100
> From: [identity deleted]
>
>>		RE: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003
>> 		"All UK research output should be online"
>> 		http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/thes.html
>> 		Details: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad
>
> Interesting, and a little ahead of its time. I am sure that citations
> will play an increasingly important role in the judgements of some
> [UK Research Assessment] panels next time. But to go the whole way you
> suggest requires a number of other things to be in place, not least 
> [1] new copyright arrangements, and confidence that other academics 
> everywhere else in the world are [2] able to be made aware of and then 
> [3] access the research publications in question. We are not there yet.

It is certainly true that we are not there yet, but we are much, much
closer than it may appear. And the outcome is both inevitable and optimal
for research, researchers, their institutions, their research funders, and
the funders of their funders (tax-paying society). What needs to be done
is to hasten and facilitate it, and the UK is in a unique position to
do this.

[1] Regarding copyright, see the Table of Publishers' Policies on
Self-Archiving maintained by JISC's Project Romeo (Rights Metadata for
Open Archiving):
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/index.html

Of the over 7000 journals so far surveyed, 55% already formally support
self-archiving, and most of the remaining 45% (perhaps 30%) will agree
on an individual-paper basis if asked. And there are even legal means of
self-archiving the remaining 15%:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#self-archiving-legal

So, depending on which way we decide to reckon it, we are at least 55%,
probably 85% and potentially 100% there already, insofar as copyright
arrangements are concerned. 

So copyright is certainly not the problem.

[2] Regarding international awareness of self-archived open-access
research, both the awareness and the evidence of the incomparably
higher visibility and usage of open-access research is already there
in abundance: It has been reported in Nature that research that is
freely accessible online is cited 336% as much as equivalent research
that is not:
http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/
There are also search engines such as
http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/ poised to become the
googles of the refereed research literature as soon as that research
is self-archived, and webmetric search engines ready to monitor and
quantify impact, in many rich new ways:
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search
http://citebase.eprints.org/java/correlation/correlation.html

So worldwide awareness certainly is not the problem.

[3] International access certainly is not the problem either: That is
what open-access self-archiving is all about!

No, everything is in place and ready. The only thing that is missing
(and hence the only problem) is the research itself! Researchers (and
their institutions) have not yet realised that the way to maximise their
work's impact is to make it open-access by self-archiving it.

It is precisely for this reason that it is so important that
research-funders should help them realise the importance of maximising
their research's impact, by the simple and eminently natural extension of
the "publish or perish" rule to: "publish with maximal impact 
(through
self-archiving)."

And it is for this reason that HEFCE and RAE and the UK Research Funding
Councils are in a position to hasten and facilitate the optimal and
inevitable, thereby leading the way for the rest of the research world,
while, paradoxically, simplifying their own lives, insofar as research
assessment is concerned, even while increasing the predictive power and
validity of the RAE!

You are right that we are not there yet. To get there we need to go the
whole way. And the time for that is now. (Indeed, it is overdue, as
research impact is being needlessly lost daily, and assessment effort is
being needlessly expended, while we wait.)

Stevan Harnad

PS 
(i) The standardised online RAE-CV can include not only refereed
journal papers and their webmetric impact measures but all other
performance indicators too, tailored to each discipline.
http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi

(ii) Book-based disciplines can self-archive their book's metadata
(author, title, date, publisher) and reference list to derive the
full benefit of these new measures of impact even if they prefer not
to self-archive the full-text.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/bookcite.htm

(iii) And even research data (normally is too voluminous to be
co-published with the research papers based on it) can be self-archived,
and benefit from measures of its citation and usage:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm



Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

From: "Margaret H. Freeman" <freemamh AT lavc.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:42:41 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

On 6/10/03 1:26 PM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk> 
wrote:

> So copyright is certainly not the problem.

That may be true for certain disciplines, but I can attest that in the
humanities, where we cite original literature, we find it expensive and
sometimes impossible to make our research internet accessible.

Margaret



[BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:46:55 +0100 (BST)


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from freemamh AT lavc.edu
      • This Message

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Margaret H. Freeman wrote:

> On 6/10/03 1:26 PM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad AT 
ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>sh> So copyright is certainly not the problem.
> 
> That may be true for certain disciplines, but I can attest that in the
> humanities, where we cite original literature, we find it expensive and
> sometimes impossible to make our research internet accessible.

All disciplines cite original literature.

That publisher copyright is not an obstacle to the
self-archiving of peer-reviewed journal articles is true of
*all* disciplines. Humanities are not an exception. Please
see the publisher self-archiving policy table in:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

But perhaps you did not mean peer-reviewed journal copyright, but
book copyright. The humanities as a whole do publish far more of their
research in book form rather than as journal articles, and in general
book-authors and their publishers do not wish to give away the
full-texts of their potentially royalty-bearing books. In this
case there is still a solution that allows their work's impact to
be measured in exactly the same way as with journal articles --
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search -- namely, if authors
self-archive (in addition to self-archiving the full-text of any
journal articles they write) their books' metadata-only (author,
title, publisher, year), along with the full-texts of only
their reference lists. That will allow a book-citation impact
factor (not currently available anyewhere) to be calculated
in exactly the same way as the article-citation impact:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/bookcite.htm

This will also add to the visibility of the book -- and it
might even allow a rudimentary download estimate to be made:
http://citebase.eprints.org/java/correlation/correlation.html

In addition, for esoteric monographs that expect only a succes d'estime,
but not much by way of royalties, the possibility of increasing their
impact still further by making their full-text openly accessible might
in some cases encourage authors to make different arrangements with
their publishers, perhaps to publish them in an online-only monograph
series, especially if otherwise publication expenses might have been
difficult to recover.

The humanities too, along with the sciences, may also wish to enhance
the research value of their publications by self-archiving the data on
which they are based -- a possibility that had been excluded, for
reasons of page-limits and their expense in the case of both books and
journal articles:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm

Stevan Harnad



Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:44:28 -0500


Threading: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from freemamh AT lavc.edu
             Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from juliana AT tin.it

At 04:42 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>On 6/10/03 1:26 PM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad AT 
ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > So copyright is certainly not the problem.
>
>That may be true for certain disciplines, but I can attest that in the
>humanities, where we cite original literature, we find it expensive and
>sometimes impossible to make our research internet accessible.
>
>Margaret

Margaret,
      Could you elaborate on this a bit further?  I can understand why art 
historians and art critics have problems.  They want to reproduce entire 
works to illustrate their points.  But I don't see any comparable problem 
for scholarship in literature, history, philosophy, or religion.  Citing 
original literature, and quoting passages in fair use, do not violate 
copyright.
      I can also see why copyright would thwart those who want to make 
anthologies or reprint whole works; but these problems affect all 
disciplines equally.

      Best,
      Peter




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

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

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

From: "Margaret H. Freeman" <freemamh AT lavc.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:40:05 -0400


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from peters AT earlham.edu
      • This Message

On 6/10/03 5:44 PM, "Peter Suber" <peters AT earlham.edu> 
wrote:

> At 04:42 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>> On 6/10/03 1:26 PM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad AT 
ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>>=20
>>> > So copyright is certainly not the problem.
>>=20
>> That may be true for certain disciplines, but I can attest that in the
>> humanities, where we cite original literature, we find it expensive 
and
>> sometimes impossible to make our research internet accessible.
>>=20
>> Margaret
>=20
> Margaret,
>      Could you elaborate on this a bit further?  I can understand why art
> historians and art critics have problems.  They want to reproduce entire =
works
> to illustrate their points.  But I don't see any comparable problem for
> scholarship in literature, history, philosophy, or religion.  Citing orig=
inal
> literature, and quoting passages in fair use, do not violate copyright.
>      I can also see why copyright would thwart those who want to make
> anthologies or reprint whole works; but these problems affect all discipl=
ines
> equally.=20
>=20
>      Best,
>      Peter
>=20
>=20
Sorry I wasn=B9t more explicit. By =B3literature=B2 I was thinking of creative
writings, such as poetry, fiction, drama, the texts of which do not get int=
o
the public domain for years (and the time has recently been increased
further). Publishers consider one poem a =B3complete=B2 work (as opposed to a
book of poems), which means if you want to cite an entire poem, it is not
considered fair use. I know this could be debated, but scholars tend not to
be willing to take on the publishers on their own. Even in scholarly
articles, we have to pay fees (e.g. $200 for one poem by Sylvia Plath), and
the restrictions are heavy (no publishing elsewhere or loading on websites)=
.

Margaret


ATTACHMENT: message.html!


Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

From: Julia Bolton Holloway <juliana AT tin.it>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 05:06:53 +0200


Threading: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

Why? Long ago, I became an independent scholar with my own websites, 
http://www.umilta.net and http://www.florin.ms, the second for the 
Proceedings our our international congresses, The City and the Book, on 
Florence and its library holdings. It costs almost nothing to have these 
websites, without commercial pop-ups even, for which service I pay the 
largest amount. I can put up the entire Latin text of St Birgitta's 
Revelationes, materials on Julian of Norwich, Terence's Comedies, just this 
past week, a whole book of essays, 'Sweet New Style: Brunetto Latino, Dante 
Alighieri and Geoffrey Chaucer', that I wrote ten years ago and had not got 
around to getting published when in the convent, so much else. I have 
created a house style that is readable, using point 14 and the layout of 
medieval manuscripts which were a memory system, alternating reds and blues 
for capitals, the ordinary type being in grey against a white background. I 
use no java or frames, wanting fellow monastics on low budgets with old 
programmes to have equal access. I also give such monastics CDs of the 
websites (a CD costs only .50 cents). Cost is not a problem with electronic 
publishing. What I suspect in the academic world is that middlemen in the 
university structures are getting their take for the budgetting, etc.

At 16:42 10.06.03 -0400, you wrote:
>On 6/10/03 1:26 PM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad AT 
ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > So copyright is certainly not the problem.
>
>That may be true for certain disciplines, but I can attest that in the
>humanities, where we cite original literature, we find it expensive and
>sometimes impossible to make our research internet accessible.
>
>Margaret

'But love was without beginning and is and ever shall be without any end.' 
Julian of Norwich, Showing of Love 20.

'Do not cause terror, for God condemns this. Someone says " I live", 
and 
the bread is taken from his mouth. Another says, "This is power", and 

again, "I will snatch for myself what I see". But he who says this is 

condemned. The one who wins is, instead, he who gives to the other what he 
needs. Nothing of all that we plan succeeds, because it is God who reigns. 
Live therefore in the house of kindness and people will come freely to you 
with gifts. Written by Ptah-Hotep in Egypt, 3550 B.C.

Julia Bolton Holloway, Hermit of the Holy Family
Biblioteca e Bottega Fioretta Mazzei, 'English Cemetery'
Piazzale Donatello, 38, 50132 FIRENZE, ITALY
juliana AT tin.it http://www.umilta.net http://www.florin.ms/aleph.html

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003

From: Julia Bolton Holloway <juliana AT tin.it>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:11:56 +0200


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from peters AT earlham.edu
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from freemamh AT lavc.edu

Yes, Margaret does have a point here. I had wanted to publish Richard 
Wilbur's poem, 'Love Calls us to Things of the World', on the web. He gave 
his permission. But his publisher required a huge fee. Ironically the poem 
is about clothing beggars in the clean white shirts on washing lines, etc! 
This means not nearly as many people know the poem as should. In Art 
History this extends back further than modern poetry. The Italian 
government requires huge fees for the publication of Italian medieval, 
Renaissance art on the web. Again limiting these works to an elite few, 
when certainly the medieval ones were intended for all.

At 07:40 11.06.03 -0400, you wrote:
>On 6/10/03 5:44 PM, "Peter Suber" <peters AT earlham.edu> 
wrote:
>At 04:42 PM 6/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>On 6/10/03 1:26 PM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad AT 
ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > So copyright is certainly not the problem.
>
>That may be true for certain disciplines, but I can attest that in the
>humanities, where we cite original literature, we find it expensive and
>sometimes impossible to make our research internet accessible.
>
>Margaret
>
>Margaret,
>      Could you elaborate on this a bit further?  I can understand why art 
> historians and art critics have problems.  They want to reproduce entire 
> works to illustrate their points.  But I don't see any comparable problem 
> for scholarship in literature, history, philosophy, or religion.  Citing 
> original literature, and quoting passages in fair use, do not violate 
> copyright.
>      I can also see why copyright would thwart those who want to make 
> anthologies or reprint whole works; but these problems affect all 
> disciplines equally.
>
>      Best,
>      Peter
>
>
>Sorry I wasn t more explicit. By literature I was thinking of creative 
>writings, such as poetry, fiction, drama, the texts of which do not get 
>into the public domain for years (and the time has recently been increased 
>further). Publishers consider one poem a complete work (as opposed to a 
>book of poems), which means if you want to cite an entire poem, it is not 
>considered fair use. I know this could be debated, but scholars tend not 
>to be willing to take on the publishers on their own. Even in scholarly 
>articles, we have to pay fees (e.g. $200 for one poem by Sylvia Plath), 
>and the restrictions are heavy (no publishing elsewhere or loading on 
>websites).
>
>Margaret


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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .