Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[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



[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: 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] 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: 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] 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] 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: Graphic needed to illustrate the effect of access on impact

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 19:07:33 +0100 (BST)


Many thanks to Andrew Odlyzko for pointing out the valuable NASA study on
the relation between usage impact and citation impact in astrophysics
at http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kurtz/jasist-submitted.ps
(converted to PDF at http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/jasist.pdf).

This very rich and informative NASA/ADS study confirms what Tim
Brody has also been finding in our analyses of the Physics Arxiv:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/time-course.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/usage-citation.gif
and his citation and co-citation analyses with citebase:
http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search

See especially Tim Brody's correlator at:
http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php

Tim is now working on making this into a variable time-window
correlator, so he can look at correlations in relation to time
at different latencies. We are studying the systematic relationship
between usage and citations, across time. We are also making
Steve-Lawrence-like controlled comparisons with usage/citation patterns
for comparable (1) toll-access paper-only or paper+online
articles versus (2) self-archived open-access articles
http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/ in order to
demonstrate graphically to all researchers in all disciplines the strong
causal relationship that exists between research access and research
impact, and how and why delay in self-archiving is losing them all
substantial quantities of research impact daily:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/self-archiving.ppt


Stevan Harnad


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 15:19:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Andrew Odlyzko <odlyzko AT dtc.umn.edu>
To: harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: benefits of free electronic distribution

Stevan,

A colleague has just sent me a pointer to what appears to be
an important study that carefully documents quantitatively the 
benefits of open access to scientific literature.  It is a paper 
by M. J. Kurtz, G. Eichorn, A. Accomazzi, C. Grant, M. Demleitner, 
S. S. Murray, N. Martimbeau, and B. Elwell, "The NASA astrophysics 
data system: Sociology, bibliometrics, and impact."  It is available 
at

  <ttp://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~kurtz/jasist-submitted.ps

(PostScript only, it appears.)  You might like to publicize this
through some of the mailing lists you moderate or have access to.

An interesting tidbit (quoting from the Abstract):

  ...  We then introduce the concept of utility time to measure
  the impact of the ADS and the electronic astronomical library
  on astronomical research.  We find that in 2002 it amounted to
  the equivalent of 736 FTE researchers, or $250 million, or the
  astronomical research done in France.

Best regards,

Andrew Odlyzko


[BOAI] Launch of Directory of Open Access Journals

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 10:20:11 -0500


LUND UNIVERSITY LAUNCHES
DIRECTORY OF OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS

May 12, 2003

Lund, Sweden - Lund University Libraries today launches the Directory of 
Open Access Journals ( DOAJ, http://www.doaj.org ), supported by the 
Information Program of the Open Society Institute ( 
http://www.osi.hu/infoprogram/ ), along with SPARC (The Scholarly 
Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, ( http://www.arl.org/sparc ). 
The directory contains information about 350 open access journals, i.e. 
quality controlled scientific and scholarly electronic journals that are 
freely available on the web. The service will continue to grow as new 
journals are identified.

The goal of the Directory of Open Access Journals is to increase the 
visibility and accessibility of open access scholarly journals, thereby 
promoting their increased usage and impact. The directory aims to 
comprehensively cover all open access scholarly journals that use an 
appropriate quality control system.  Journals in all languages and subject 
areas will be included in the DOAJ.

The database records will be freely available for reuse in other services 
and can be harvested by using the OAI-PMH ( http://www.openarchives.org/ ), 
thus further increasing the visibility of the journals. The further 
development of DOAJ will continue with version 2, which will offer the 
enhanced feature of allowing the journals to be searched at the article 
level, and is expected to be available in late fall 2003.

"For the researcher DOAJ will mean simplified access to relevant 
information said Lars Björnshauge, Director, Lund University Libraries. The 
directory will give open-access journals a simple method to register their 
existence, and a means to dramatically enhance their visibility. Moreover, 
by enabling searches of all journals in the database at the article level, 
the next stage of DOAJ development will save research time and increase 
readership of articles."

If you know a journal that should be included in the directory, use this 
form to report it to the directory: http://www.doaj.org/suggest. 
Information about how to obtain DOAJ records for use in a library catalog 
or other service you will find at: 
http://www.doaj.org/articles/questions/#metadata.



[BOAI] open peer review journal

From: Reme Melero <rmelero AT iata.csic.es>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 16:33:18 +0200


The Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JIME) published by the 
Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, U.K. could serve as an 
example of open peer review process (see presenttion). Web site: 
http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/
Good luck!
Reme


R. Melero
Managing Editor
Food Science and Technology International
IATA, CSIC
PO BOX 73 46100 Burjasot, Valencia, Spain
TEl +34 96 390 00 22. Fax 96 363 63 01
E-mail rmelero AT iata.csic.es
http://www.iata.csic.es/~bibrem/FSTI.html






ATTACHMENT: JIME.ppt!


Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship

From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <gerrymck AT iastate.edu>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 09:24:19 -0500


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr
      • This Message

Bernard/

    Thanks for your interest in my posting, your recommendations, and
citations!

/Gerry 

>>> Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr 05/05/03 08:02AM >>>
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:24:52PM -0500, Gerry Mckiernan wrote:
>                   Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship
> 
> For a forthcoming presentation [and, of course, the  obligatory
associated Web registry and article {:-)],  I am greatly interested in
the key articles/report/documents about  Alternative Peer Review for
Scholarship, as well as examples of exemplar (Web-based) publishing
initiatives  that have implemented one or more of these alternatives.
> 
>  The Alternative Models that come to mind are: 
> 
> Open Peer Review
> Formal Peer Review with Subsequent Commentary
> Commentary Only (No Prior Formal  Peer Review)
> Pre and/or Post Commentary 
> Citation-based Peer Review
> Reader-based Peer Review
> Computer-Assisted Peer Review
> Collaborative Filtering 
> Others?

and another one :

   any combination of the above,  or all combinations of the above.

   A proper architecture (and standards) could allow users to combine
as they see fit all kinds of reviews.
   briefly summarized (in french)
 
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ecrits/Exposes/Bruxelles-Egov/papierg.htm

 
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ecrits/Exposes/Bruxelles-Egov/papieri.htm


  (note: these slides were developped to show that a change in cost
structures necessarily change production structures in the long run.)

   Reviews are just data, produced by any mean, and made available on
the net (free or at cost).  You take it if you want it, and do
whatever you see fit.

Bernard

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

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




Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship

From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang AT inria.fr>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:02:28 +0200


Threading: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from gerrymck AT iastate.edu
      • This Message
             Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from gerrymck AT iastate.edu

On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 03:24:52PM -0500, Gerry Mckiernan wrote:
>                   Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship
> 
> For a forthcoming presentation [and, of course, the  obligatory associated 
Web registry and article {:-)],  I am greatly interested in the key 
articles/report/documents about  Alternative Peer Review for Scholarship, as 
well as examples of exemplar (Web-based) publishing initiatives  that have 
implemented one or more of these alternatives.
> 
>  The Alternative Models that come to mind are: 
> 
> Open Peer Review
> Formal Peer Review with Subsequent Commentary
> Commentary Only (No Prior Formal  Peer Review)
> Pre and/or Post Commentary 
> Citation-based Peer Review
> Reader-based Peer Review
> Computer-Assisted Peer Review
> Collaborative Filtering 
> Others?

and another one :

   any combination of the above,  or all combinations of the above.

   A proper architecture (and standards) could allow users to combine
as they see fit all kinds of reviews.
   briefly summarized (in french)
  http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ecrits/Exposes/Bruxelles-Egov/papierg.htm
  http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ecrits/Exposes/Bruxelles-Egov/papieri.htm

  (note: these slides were developped to show that a change in cost
structures necessarily change production structures in the long run.)

   Reviews are just data, produced by any mean, and made available on
the net (free or at cost).  You take it if you want it, and do
whatever you see fit.

Bernard

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

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


Re: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship

From: Radu <radu AT monicsoft.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:00:47 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Alternative Peer Review Models for Scholarship from gerrymck AT iastate.edu
      • This Message

Hello.

The peer review style that I notice missing among the ones you cited is the 
Discussion Forum kind.

Either moderated or free, this style is much more dynamic, thus seems 
better suited for a digital, connected medium.

One might compare it with seminar/workshop-style commentary. Oh, and there 
are MANY tools out there which make this possible (wikis, nukes, as well as 
other content management tools, OpenSource or otherwise)

At 04:24 PM 4/25/03, Gerry Mckiernan wrote:
>   I am *particularly* interested in any current research or 
> implementations that are Computer-Assisted

Cheers,
Radu
(www.monicsoft.net)


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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .