Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

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 14:54:31 -0400


Threading: Re: [BOAI] Re: THES article on research access Friday June 6 2003 from juliana AT tin.it
      • This Message

On 6/11/03 11:11 AM, "Julia Bolton Holloway" <juliana AT 
tin.it> wrote:

> This means not nearly as many people know the poem as should.

Julia makes a good point. (And how ironic that poets like Wilbur don't have
financial control over how their own work gets disseminated.) I work mostly
with the poetry of Emily Dickinson which, although written in the nineteenth
century, is _still_ under copyright and likely to remain so for the
indefinite future. The irony here is that the current popularity and
therefore reproductions (a sizeable income for publishers) of Dickinson's
poetry have come in no small measure from the scholars and teachers who have
disseminated and promoted knowledge of her work.

I know this is complicating Steve's attempts to institutionalize scholarly
archiving, but isn't there some way those of us affected by such copyright
restrictions can mount a collective argument as to why publishers would
benefit and not lose from such archiving?

Margaret



[BOAI] Re: Copyright, Embargo, and the Ingelfinger Rule

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:10:49 +0100 (BST)


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Copyright, Embargo, and the Ingelfinger Rule from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             [BOAI] Re: Copyright, Embargo, and the Ingelfinger Rule from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:

>>		From: Daniel Wolf
>>		Subject: Closing the 'Digital Divide'
>>		Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:14:53 +0200
>>
>>		The most effective way to alter this situation may be
>>		through organizing the scholars who contribute voluntarily
>>		to peer-review.  The prestige of most such journals rests
>>		upon an unpaid peer-review system, so these scholars have the
>>		potential to exercise considerable leverage over journal policy.
>>		Reviewers should be encouraged _not_ to participate unless the
>>		journal expressly allows individual writers to archive their
>>		own work electronically or otherwise.
>>		http://listserv.dartmouth.edu/Archives/gamelan.htm
>
> What do you think of signing up reviewers to put pressure on journals?

I think it's a fine idea; it will no doubt help hasten open access; it is
already implicit in the open-access movement (since the author population
is exactly the same as the referee population!) -- but there is a far
simpler and more direct way to achieve the same result far more quickly
and probably!

There are two routes to open access to the refereed literature. 
One is to try to persuade the 20,000 refereed journals to convert to
open access, and to create rival open access journals to replace those
that don't.

That is the Budapest Open Access Initiative's Strategy 2, BOAI-2, and
I support it: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess
but it is a *very* slow and uncertain route to open access, relying as
it does on either persuading the publishers of the 20,000 journals to
convert or founding 20,000 rival journals. There is progress, but if
you quantify and extrapolate the BOAI-2 growth curve, you will find that
this route is going to take an awfully long time (there are about 500
open-access journals so far -- http://www.doaj.org/ --) if it ever gets
us there at all. (We've learned that circulating and signing petitions
and threats to boycott is easy, but actual actions are not, and few...)

The second route to open access is not just to try to persuade authors
(or referees) to try to persuade their publishers to do it (or to
found alternative journals if they don't, and then persuade authors to
submit to those instead). The far more direct route is to get authors
to self-archive their *own* refereed papers, thereby making them openly
accessible to all would-be users whose institutions cannot afford the
access-tolls for the publishers' version.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable.gif
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#self-archiving-legal

The growth of open access by this route (BOAI-1) 
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#self-archiving
is already a good deal faster currently than via BOAI-2, but still far
from fast enough. (There are 2,000,000 papers published a year, and *all*
need to be self-archived, yesterday!) But BOAI-1 has the advantage of
being far more direct. In principle, it could be done overnight. The
only ones who need to be persuaded are the authors. For BOAI-2, it is not
enough to convince the authors; then the publishers need to be convinced;
and rival journals need to be founded for those journals that are not
convinced; and then authors need to be re-convinced to submit to those
journals instead of their established journals.

There are many, many links in that chain. I am investing all my own
efforts and energy instead into convincing authors, directly,
that self-archiving, right now, will maximize their own research
impact (usage, citation), on which both their salaries and their
research funding (not to mention their contributions to knowledge)
depend. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/

The effect will be the same: Open access to the refereed literature --
and perhaps eventually providing a much stronger incentive to publishers
(to cut obsolete costs and products, and downsize to the essentials,
offloading everything but refereeing onto institutional self-archiving,
and converting to open-access publishing) than appeals from authors and
referees who do not even feel strongly enough about open access to make
their *own* work openly accessible, by self-archiving it! That sounds like
a pretty hollow appeal, and unconvincing "leverage" to me! Let us 
first
show that we have the strength of our convictions about open access for
the the portion of the refereed literature that is within our own direct
control. It seems rather presumptuous to be asking publishers to take
risks and make sacrifices for our sake, until we show that we ourselves
are prepared to take this small, simple self-help step ourselves.

I am convinced self-archiving is the fastest and surest path to universal
open access. I just have to persuade authors too, that it is
so! 

"Self-Archive Unto Others as Ye Would Have them Self-Archive Unto
You" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html

Amen, 

Stevan Harnad



[BOAI] Re: Copyright, Embargo, and the Ingelfinger Rule

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 00:13:50 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Copyright, Embargo, and the Ingelfinger Rule from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, Daniel Wolf wrote:

> I agree entirely with the self-archiving idea; unfortunately, it appears
> that some (if not many or most) commercially-published journals will 
refuse
> to even consider an article if it is already available in _any_ form. It 
is
> for that reason that I believe it necessary to use the leverage of the
> reviewing community to insist that journals should either change such
> best regards,

You are referring to the Ingelfinger Rule. No need to be concerned about
it. In fact, few journals ever had the Rule, and of those that did,
most are dropping it. Nature has already dropped it; so has the American
Psychological Association; Science soon will; the American Physical
Society never had it. I suspect that the American Chemical Society will
be among the die-hards, but the last journal to shut the door behind
it will be the New England Journal of Medicine, whose former Editor,
Franz Ingelfinger, was the one who formulated the Rule:

    Harnad, S. (2000) Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role
    of the Web in the Future of Refereed Medical Journal
    Publishing. Lancet Perspectives 256 (December Supplement): s16.
    http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/17/03/

    Harnad, S. (2000) E-Knowledge: Freeing the Refereed Journal Corpus
    Online. Computer Law & Security Report 16(2) 78-87. [Rebuttal to Bloom
    Editorial in Science and Relman Editorial in New England Journal of
    Medicine] http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/17/01/

It's important to understand two things about the Ingelfinger Rule.

(1) The Ingelfinger Rule is neither a copyright nor a legal matter; it is
merely a journal submission policy: "We will not referee or publish any
text that has been previously been made publicly available in any form."

(2) Not only is the Ingelfinger Rule not a legal matter, but it is also
not enforceable, nor can it even be given a coherent interpretation,
as it is poised on a slippery slope: Does circulating paper preprints
count as making publicly available? (How many?) Does presenting it at a
scientific conference? How about earlier drafts? How different do they
have to be to *not* be a violation of the Ingelfinger Rule?

As most journals don't even purport to have the Ingelfinger Rule,
and those that do cannot enforce it, the best policy on the part of
authors is to ignore it, as all self-archivers have been doing for
over a decade. Self-archiving needs to be accelerated substantially,
but it is certain that it is *not* the Ingelfinger Rule that is holding
self-archiving back! It is author unawareness of the strong and direct
causal connection between access and impact:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

Hence what is needed is not authors and referees crusading against
the Ingelfinger Rule, but *for* immediate, universal, self-archiving!

Stevan Harnad


[BOAI] Facilitating free/ low-cost access to STM information

From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun AT mssrf.res.in>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 11:17:52 +0530


Friends:

Prof. Bruce Alberts, President of the US National Academy of Sciences, is a
champion of science in the developing world. About a year or two ago, he
spoke about the need for making scientific and scholarly literature widely
available, especially to scientists in the developing countries, even if it
means substantial subsidies. In about a week from now he will be addressing
presidents (and other representatives) of many national science academies of
the world at the meeting of the Inter Academy Council. People like us should
write to him and support him in this initiative. And persuade him and other
Academy presidents to work out a time-bound programme to make most of the
STM literature widely available on the Internet and also a programme that
would ensure access to computers and high bandwidth Internet connections for
developing country researchers. What use is it if the information is
available, but not the tools necessary to access it! 
 
I am marking copies of this mail to several like-minded people. 
 
Howsoever committed we are, I am afraid, unless we enlist the support of
eminent scientists who can bring in the huge funds needed, we cannot succeed
in achieving our goal - of making STM information easily accessible to
developing country scientists. 
 
Regards.
 
Arun
[Subbiah Arunachalam]

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


[BOAI] Re: Copyright, Embargo, and the Ingelfinger Rule

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 14:36:00 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Copyright, Embargo, and the Ingelfinger Rule from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Fytton Rowland wrote:

> >sh> the author population is exactly the same as the referee
> >sh> population
> 
> That statement is untrue. Not all authors referee, either for one
> particular journal, or at all. Remove "exactly" and replace it 
with
> "substantially" and it might become true.  

Fytton is quite right. And this also leaves the point I was making
substantially true: Authors and referees are substantially the same
population, so if referees make appeal X to journal publishers then it
is substantially the same people making appeal X if the referees add
their voices (mutatis mutandis for a few journals).

This does not at all mean that it is not a good idea to make the research
community's wishes known to journal publishers, whether they are wearing
their authors' hats, their referees' hats or their readers' hats. My
points were these:

(1) Insofar as the right to self-archive preprints and/or postprints is
concerned, there is no longer any substantial obstacle. 55% of journals
officially support it already; most of the rest will agree on an
individual article basis if asked; and for the few that do not, there
remains the preprint+corrigenda option:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#publisher-forbids
That was also the very ecumenical sense at the STM publishers' meeting
in Amsterdam: http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html

So, insofar as self-archiving is concerned, the publishers do not
appear to be what is slowing us up! What effort we choose to devote to
open-access is hence far better devoted to actually self-archiving our
own work, rather than appealing to publishers (as authors or referees or
readers) to allow their authors to do it: They already allow it. 

(Having self-archived one's own work, however, if there is some more
time one wishes to contribute to open access as author or referee
[or reader], it would of course be very helpful if the commitment of
those publishers who already support self-archiving were reinforced by
an expression of appreciation, and if publishers not yet supporting it
were strongly encouraged to fall in step with the majority on this issue
that is so important to the research community and to research itself).

(2) My second (and longer) point was that expressions of the research
community's desire for open access (whether expressed wearing their
author's, referee's, or reader's hats) will have substantially more
credibility if they are voiced to publishers *after* the research
community has taken the obvious self-help steps that are already within
its own power, namely, self-archiving their own research. Asking
publishers to take risks or make sacrifices for the sake of open
access on our behalf is less convincing if we have not even taken the
available no-risk, no-sacrifice steps for the sake of open access that
are already open to us. (Publishers would otherwise be quite justified in
concluding that, in that case, we are not really all that serious about
open access: ready to sign petitions, but nothing more.)

> This statement has much in common with the frequently made one that, for
> any given journal, the authors and the readers are the same people.  That
> isn't true either - there are students, schoolteachers and practitioners
> who read the scholarly literature but do not contribute to it.

I completely agree about that too -- but it is also why I stress authors
and referees (i.e., researchers) rather than readers in all arguments
for open access. The unique and uncontestable rationale for open access
to refereed research is that it is for the sake of the research *impact*:
that means the degree to which research is read, used, applied and cited
by other researchers, pure and applied. It is research impact that
rewards research funders, and the employers of researchers, and the
researchers themselves. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

Yes, being read by students, teachers, practitioners, and the
general public is very welcome and desirable too (and download impact
will soon be added to the battery of new research impact
measures http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search and new
online measures of "teaching impact" will no doubt also be
designed and used to reward online courseware productivity:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2523.html ) but it
will always remain true that the primary targets of refereed research
publication are researchers -- i.e., authors and referees, and not merely
readers in general.

It is precisely for this reason that refereed research is and has always
been an author give-away, not written for royalties or fees, but for
research impact. It is precisely for this reason that toll-barriers,
being impact-barriers, are so counterproductive and undesirable for
research and researchers, and why open access is so beneficial and
desirable. http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.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

If the appeal for open access were simply based on the desire
of maximizing readership, *all* authors would want to give their writing
away -- but they do not, because most are *not* writing primarily for
research impact. Nor is a reader-based appeal for open access (from
students, teachers, and the general public) a very persuasive rationale
for open access, considering that those readers would welcome just as
fervently open access to *all* writing -- books, textbooks, magazines.
The unique and specific rationale for open-access to refereed research
output -- which is that it is written purely for the sake of research
impact, not sales revenue -- would be lost, if it were conflated with 
and diluted by a generalized consumer appeal for a free product.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.1

Stevan Harnad


[BOAI] Am Physiological Society jnl Physiological Genomics goes open access

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:09:26 -0500


Readers of this list may have noticed the full page ad in The Scientist (Vol
17, no 12, June 16, 2003, page 37) announcing "An Open Access choice for
authors of Physiological Genomics". What this means is that starting 1 
July,
authors can choose to pay $1500 to have their article immediately and
permanently accessible online without charge. Copyright, however, seems to
remain with the journal. So not quite 'true' Open Access according to our
definition (see below), but clearly a welcome step in the right direction.
Let's hope many more journals will follow.

Web site says it has an average of 128 hits per article per month. If the
BioMed Central experience is anything to go by, open access articles in
Physiological Genomics can expect a subtantially expanded visibility.

Jan Velterop
BioMed Central (www.biomedcentral.com)
The Scientist ( www.the-scientist.com)

Every peer-reviewed research article appearing in any journal published by
BioMed Central is 'open access', meaning that:
	The article is universally and freely accessible via the Internet,
in an easily readable format and deposited immediately upon publication,
without embargo, in an agreed format - current preference is XML with a
declared DTD - in at least one widely and internationally recognized open
access repository (such as PubMed Central).
	The author(s) or copyright owner(s) irrevocably grant(s) to any
third party, in advance and in perpetuity, the right to use, reproduce or
disseminate the research article in its entirety or in part, in any format
or medium, provided that no substantive errors are introduced in the
process, proper attribution of authorship and correct citation details are
given, and that the bibliographic details are not changed. If the article is
reproduced or disseminated in part, this must be clearly and unequivocally
indicated.


________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Looking for the latest Free IT White Papers?
Visit SearchNetworking.com to access over 500 white papers.
Get instant access at SearchNetworking.com Today
http://us.click.yahoo.com/99UKOC/OLNGAA/fzPGAA/IHFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bmanifesto-unsubscribe AT yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


[BOAI] Re: EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:19:38 +0100 (BST)


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

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:

> Probably of interest to readers of this list:
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030616/03

In that article in The Scientist, "UC to launch open-access 
journals,"
Catherine Zandonella writes:

> In a trend that could permanently alter the nature of scholarly
> publishing, several top research universities are setting up
> electronic superarchives to store and share their researchers'
> data. Some universities see these "institutional repositories"
> simply as a way to capture their intellectual output, but others
> aim to use their repositories as a means of launching open-access
> alternatives to conventional academic journals.

"Simply a way to capture their intellectual output"? Clearly the 
point
of self-archiving refereed research has been completely missed here!
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

Unfortunately, Zandonella's article simply propagates the growing
wave of nonspecific euphoria about university repositories, which seems
to be based on freely conflating distinct and not always compatible
potential uses for such repositories.

In http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2837.html
I suggested:

>sh>    The 5 distinct aims for institutional repositories are:
>
>sh>    I.   (RES) self-archiving institutional research output 
(preprints,
>sh>         postprints and theses)
>sh>    II.  (MAN) digital collection management (all kinds of digital
>sh>         content)
>sh>    III. (PRES) digital preservation (all kinds of digital content)
>sh>    IV.  (TEACH) online teaching materials
>sh>    V.   (EPUB) electronic publication (journals and books)
>
>sh>    As long as we keep blurring or mixing these 5 distinct aims, the
>sh>    first and by far the most pressing of them, RES -- the filling of
>sh>    university eprint archives with all university research output,
>sh>    pre- and post-peer-review, in order to maximize its impact
>sh>    through open access -- will be needlessly delayed (and so will
>sh>    any eventual relief from the university serials budget crisis).

UC seems to be another instance of conflating I. (RES) and V. (EPUB).
It is hard to discern whether this is just a case of (i) misunderstanding
the essential feature of peer review -- which is that it must be an
autonomous, outsourced, neutral-3rd-party service, otherwise it risks
just becoming a house organ or vanity press -- or else a case of (ii)
High (Wire Press) Hopes (Stanford Envy?): Universities seeking to make
a bigger inroad into electronic publishing.

> This fall, the University of California (UC) plans to unveil just
> such an option for its researchers: the ability to create and run
> an open-access, peer-reviewed journal within the framework of its
> eScholarship Repository.

But the question is this: Does the planet really need more peer-reviewed
journals (it has 20,000 already, most of them toll-access). And is the 
best contribution universities can make with their "superarchives" to
create new journals? Or would it be more useful (to both themselves and
other universities) if they instead focused on making their own 
peer-reviewed research publications openly accessible by self-archiving
them in their own eprint archives (RES)? Does it help either
objective to conflate them under the one rubric of "superarchive" 
(not
UC's word, but a predictable reaction of the press, if we keep freely
admixing I. - V.). Especially at a time when archive frenzy is growing
fast, but self-archiving is still growing too slowly!

> The repository, which is open to all users, will provide software
> tools to automate the process of sending out papers for peer review;
> the journal editors will determine the editorial policies and the
> publication schedule. "We are trying to provide the continuum
> of publishing alternatives," said Suzanne Samuel, eScholarship
> Program coordinator for the California Digital Library, which runs
> the repository for the UC system. (The eScholarship site already
> contains one open-access journal, Dermatology Online Journal, which
> was launched in 1995 and later moved to the UC site.)

As Gerry McKiernan's recent overview shows, there are *many* new
pieces of software being created to automate peer review and journal
publication, all designed to make journal publishing faster, cheaper,
and more efficient. 
http://www.sissa.it/~marco/ws.htm 
What has this to do with any pressing problem facing the university
(such as research access, research impact, or the serials crisis)?

> The idea for institutional repositories arose out of the need to
> archive the increasing amount of data researchers now store on their
> hard drives or display on their web sites. The data in the repository
> are indexed with meta-tags that allow a variety of search strategies,
> and the repository software provides the framework for checking data
> in, storing it, and retrieving it via a web interface. A repository
> can also serve as a preprint server, where researchers can solicit
> comments on unpublished work.

But what does this research data-archiving -- an excellent idea
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm and a
subset of RES -- have to do with EPUB? And why are unrefereed preprints
(an excellent and welcome bonus) singled out for self-archiving when it
is peer-reviewed, published postprints to which access is most urgently
needed?

> An important development in the creation of repositories came last
> fall with the launch of DSpace, a repository software platform
> developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in
> collaboration with Hewlett-Packard. The DSpace software can be
> downloaded for free, and about 3400 individuals and institutions
> have now done so.

And so can a lot of other software, as indicated earlier in this
discussion thread. But what universities need now is not more software
but a much clearer idea of what to do with it, and why!

> A consortium of universities, called the DSpace Federation,
> is beta-testing the software. The Federation includes Columbia
> University, Cornell University, Ohio State University, University
> of Rochester, University of Washington, University of Toronto,
> and Cambridge University.

Meanwhile, at least 72 universities are already running eprint archives,
some for as long as 2 years: http://www.eprints.org/ So what? The
archives need filling. And to understand why they need filling, and with
what they need filling, I. - V. have to be separated and each dealt with
in its own right, on its own agenda. Conflating the five just keeps
everything at the beta-testing stage!

> The DSpace software contains no rules on who can enter data, what
> kinds of data can be accepted, or who can access them. Instead,
> the DSpace users set up "communities" and establish their own 
terms
> of use.

What the university community needs is a clear idea of what these
archives are for, and how to go about filling them. I may be wrong, but
at this moment the rationale and urgency for RES (I), the self-archiving
of research output, pre- and post-peer-review, seems to vastly outweigh
that of the other four. But, more important, RES is so distinct from the
other four that it would almost be better if we did not think of all
five as just different "superarchive" functions, but as independent
university functions in their own right. And I don't know about the
other four, but I am pretty sure that RES is better served
by having a lot of OAI-interoperable departmental archives
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html rather than one
university monster-archive (especially if the central superarchive would
conflate I - V!): Isn't that sort of integrable distribution of the
burden part of the rationale for OAI interoperability?
http://www.openarchives.org/

> One federation member that plans to use DSpace to further its goal of
> providing free access to peer-reviewed content is Cornell University.
> Among the reasons for doing this is the feeling that the existing
> publishing model isn't serving universities well, said J. Robert
> Cooke, professor of agricultural and biological engineering and dean
> of the faculty at Cornell. "Long ago we outsourced publishing to
> [commercial] publishers," said Cooke. "Now we need to take it 
back."

So (to put it graphically): Is Cornell University planning to make its
Science and Nature publications open-access by self-archiving them (RES),
or is it planning to create Cornell House-Journals to publish them in
instead (EPUB), rather than of "outsourcing" them to the established
peer-reviewed journals?

> Repositories can serve as a bargaining chip for universities in
> the debate over the future of scholarly publishing, believes Hal
> Abelson, MIT Class of 1922 professor of computer science. "We [the
> universities] have something to bring to the table," said Abelson.

Fine, but what, exactly, are we bargaining about? Open access to our own
peer-reviewed research output? But we can already have that by
self-archiving it in our eprint archives (RES)! What has this to do with
universities trying to get more involved in electronic publication
(EPUB)?

Or does Hal Abelson mean universities should pressure publishers to
make sure they have updated their copyright agreements to formally
support self-archiving? That is a good idea, but there is considerable
momentum there already, with 55% of publishers already formally
supporting self-archiving, and most of the other agreeing if asked on an
individual basis. 
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
By that token, the RES archives should be at least 55% full already!

But I agree that universities have leverage here -- although it has little
to do with EPUB: It is because *authors* want and need maximal research
impact that publishers have little choice but to support self-archiving,
not because universities threaten to become journal-publishers [EPUB].
http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html

> But Harold Varmus, president and chief executive officer of Memorial
> Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and cofounder of the
> Public Library of Science -- which later this year plans to publish two
> new open-access biomedical journals -- is skeptical about the idea that
> repositories themselves will help to bring about change. He emphasized
> that journals, not repositories, are the primary record of science.
> "They [repositories] are not going to replace the idea of having an
> investigator write up results," said Varmus.

And Hal Varmus is of course right. Self-archived, unrefereed preprints
in one's university eprint archive are merely vanity-press until/unless
they are submitted for independent, expert peer-review by a peer-review
service-provider with established quality-standards that would-be users
of those findings can rely upon. Such a service has to be 
"outsourced"
and it happens to be performed at the moment by 20,000 peer-reviewed
journals, with their own established expertise, quality-standards and
known track-records.

The problem is not "repatriating" that peer-review service. It has to
continue to be an autonomous, 3rd-party service. The problem is access
to its *outcome*: The refereed final drafts. Self-archiving solves that
problem, not by providing a substitute for journals but by supplementing
access to their full-text contents (toll-free).

Hal Varmus himself conflated EPUB and RES somewhat in the original
version of his otherwise splendid and timely EBiomed proposal, but it
is clear that this has since been thought through and sorted out.
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0509.htm#harn45
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0240.html

> Repositories won't make journals go away, agreed Rick Johnson,
> enterprise director at the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources
> Coalition (SPARC), a group that advocates an open model of scientific
> publishing. But, said Johnson, "They begin a process of change that
> will bring about emergence of different business models that support
> science communication."

Self-archiving (RES) provides open access, immediately. That's what's
urgently needed by the research community. New business models for
refereed journal publishing may follow, but what is needed *now* is
self-archiving. 

> Johnson thinks the availability of preprints, data sets, and images
> will spur communication and feedback among fellow scientists. "People
> will say, 'Gee, my research is hidden behind toll gates today. If
> it was not hidden, imagine what kind of impact it could have.'"

One can hardly disagree, now that SPARC is beginning to come round to
that sensible view! (It is not that long since SPARC's only visible goal
was lower journal prices!)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0697.html

But it is not just, or even primarily, about (unrefereed) preprints,
data sets and images. It is about toll-free access to *refereed
research.* SPARC needs to be much clearer on that, otherwise they too are
contributing to the gridlock that comes from conflating I. - V.

> At the very least, these superarchives will draw universities into
> the ongoing debate over who should be the gatekeeper of scientific
> information. But Pieter Bolman, vice president and director of
> science, technology, and medical relations for Elsevier Science is
> bullish about the continuing importance of subscription journals. He
> said that although scientists may no longer need journals for
> peer-review -- as they can set up their own systems for reviewing
> papers -- they will continue to seek publication in the journals with
> the best reputation.

I will bet a good deal of money that Pieter Bolman did *not* say anything
as patently nonsensical as that! (Pieter?) This was a journalist's
own contribution to the confusion with which this simple domain is so
rife! Pieter is fully aware that "gate-keeping" has to be outsourced,
and that it is its track-record for gate-keeping that gives a journal
its reputation, not merely its name.

But this absurd picture of universities serving as their own
gate-keepers (EPUB?) along with the idea that this will
co-exist with journals subscribed to purely for their names is
just one facet of the incoherent chimera -- like a 5-dimensional
Escher-drawing -- that comes from conflating I. - V.! It's time
to de-conflate.

> One issue that the emergence of repositories brings to the fore is
> that of copyright. Most scholarly journals acquire copyright from the
> author and grant certain rights in return. The exact terms of this
> agreement vary widely, said Jane Ginsburg, an expert in copyright
> law at Columbia Law School in New York.

Indeed. But the only *relevant* term insofar as the refereed research
literature is concerned is whether or not they allow self-archiving --
and, regarding *that*, journals are quickly, sensibly, and responsibly
converging on the optimal and inevitable outcome:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

> Many journals grant authors the right to post the article on a
> personal or university web site. However, "It is one thing if a
> bunch of individual professors put papers on their web sites, but
> it might be another matter if a university does it," said Ginsburg.

No, in the age of OAI-interoperability it does not matter in the
slightest whether it is individual professors or their universities who
self-archive their papers -- as long as the site is OAI-compliant. But
where universities and even governmental research-funding agencies can
help is in extending their existing "publish or perish" carrot/stick
to :"publish and self-archive" (for maximal research impact):
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/

> Mary Waltham, a former publisher of the Nature journals and
> now a consultant for the publishing industry, can see that
> happening. "Search tools are becoming better, and my own personal
> view is that at some point, one will be able to search the Internet
> and find copies of these articles in repositories," said Waltham.

Yes, but it is not search tools that will make that day come, but a
systematic institutional policy of self-archiving those articles in those
institutional repositories! To sort that out, II-V have to be
disentangled from the all important I (RES).

Amen.

Stevan Harnad



[BOAI] Bethesda statement on open access publishing

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:16:24 -0500


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Bethesda statement on open access publishing from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             [BOAI] Re: Bethesda statement on open access publishing from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

[I'm forwarding an important statement on open access publishing from an=20
April meeting of foundations, scientists, editors, publishers, and open=20
access proponents.  It was released on June 20.  I will make sure that=20
comments to the BOAI Forum are known to the conference organizers.  I=20
participated in the conference and signed the document.  I wish it went=20
further on a few points, but it makes significant headway e.g. in asking=20
foundations to pay the processing fees charged by open-access=20
journals.  The public and private funding agencies in the room agreed that=
=20
this was something they could and should do to promote open access. =
 --Peter.]


Summary of the April 11, 2003, Meeting on Open Access Publishing

The following statements of principle were drafted during a one-day meeting=
=20
held on April 11, 2003 at the headquarters of the Howard Hughes Medical=20
Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland.  The purpose of this document is to=20
stimulate discussion within the biomedical research community on how to=20
proceed, as rapidly as possible, to the widely held goal of providing open=
=20
access to the primary scientific literature. Our goal was to agree on=20
significant, concrete steps that all relevant parties --the organizations=20
that foster and support scientific research, the scientists that generate=20
the research results, the publishers who facilitate the peer-review and=20
distribution of results of the research, and the scientists, librarians and=
=20
other who depend on access to this knowledge-- can take to promote the=20
rapid and efficient transition to open access publishing.

A list of the attendees is given following the statements of principle;=20
they participated as individuals and not necessarily as representatives of=
=20
their institutions. Thus, this statement, while reflecting the group=20
consensus, should not be interpreted as carrying the unqualified=20
endorsement of each participant or any position by their institutions.

Our intention is to reconvene an expanded group in a few months to draft a=
=20
final set of principles that we will then seek to have formally endorsed by=
=20
funding agencies, scientific societies, publishers, librarians, research=20
institutions and individual scientists as the accepted standard for=20
publication of peer-reviewed reports of original research in the biomedical=
=20
sciences.

The document is divided into four sections: The first is a working=20
definition of open access publication. This is followed by the reports of=20
three working groups.

---
Definition of Open Access Publication

An Open Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two=
 conditions:
1.     The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free,=
=20
irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to=20
copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make=20
and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible=
=20
purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the=20
right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

2.     A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,=20
including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard=
=20
electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at=20
least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution,=20
scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established=20
organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution,=20
interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences,=20
PubMed Central is such a repository).
Notes:

1. Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals=
=20
or publishers.

2.   Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to=20
provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible=
=20
use of the published work, as they do now.

---
Statement of the Institutions and Funding Agencies working group

Our organizations sponsor and nurture scientific research to promote the=20
creation and dissemination of new ideas and knowledge for the public=20
benefit.  We recognize that publication of results is an essential part of=
=20
scientific research and the costs of publication are part of the cost of=20
doing research. We already expect that our faculty and grantees share their=
=20
ideas and discoveries through publication. This mission is only=20
half-completed if the work is not made as widely available and as useful to=
=20
society as possible.  The Internet has fundamentally changed the practical=
=20
and economic realities of distributing published scientific knowledge and=20
makes possible substantially increased access.

To realize the benefits of this change requires a corresponding fundamental=
=20
change in our policies regarding publication by our grantees and faculty:
1.  We encourage our faculty/grant recipients to publish their work=20
according to the principles of the open access model, to maximize the=20
access and benefit to scientists, scholars and the public throughout the=
 world.

2.  We realize that moving to open and free access, though probably=20
decreasing total costs, may displace some costs to the individual=20
researcher through page charges, or to publishers through decreased=20
revenues, and we pledge to help defray these costs.  To this end we agree=20
to help fund the necessary expenses of publication under the open access=20
model of individual papers in peer-reviewed journals (subject to reasonable=
=20
limits based on market conditions and services provided).

3.  We reaffirm the principle that only the intrinsic merit of the work,=20
and not the title of the journal in which a candidate=92s work is published,=
=20
will be considered in appointments, promotions, merit awards or grants.

4.  We will regard a record of open access publication as evidence of=20
service to the community, in evaluation of applications for faculty=20
appointments, promotions and grants.
We adopt these policies in the expectation that the publishers of=20
scientific works share our desire to maximize public benefit from=20
scientific knowledge and will view these new policies as they are intended=
=20
--an opportunity to work together for the benefit of the scientific=20
community and the public.

---
Statement of the Libraries & Publishers Working Group

We believe that open access will be an essential component of scientific=20
publishing in the future and that works reporting the results of current=20
scientific research should be as openly accessible and freely useable as=20
possible.  Libraries and publishers should make every effort to hasten this=
=20
transition in a fashion that does not disrupt the orderly dissemination of=
=20
scientific information.

Libraries propose to:
1.   Develop and support mechanisms to make the transition to open access=20
publishing and to provide examples of these mechanisms to the community.

2.   In our education and outreach activities, give high priority to=20
teaching our users about the benefits of open access publishing and open=20
access journals.

3.   List and highlight open access journals in our catalogs and other=20
relevant databases.



Journal publishers propose to:
1.   Commit to providing an open access option for any research article=20
published in any of the journals they publish.

2.   Declare a specific timetable for transition of journals to open access=
=20
models.

3.   Work with other publishers of open access works and interested parties=
=20
to develop tools for authors and publishers to facilitate publication of=20
manuscripts in standard electronic formats suitable for archival storage=20
and efficient searching.

4.   Ensure that open access models requiring author fees lower barriers to=
=20
researchers at demonstrated financial disadvantage, particularly those from=
=20
developing countries.
---
Statement of Scientists and Scientific Societies Working Group

Scientific research is an interdependent process whereby each experiment is=
=20
informed by the results of others. The scientists who perform research and=
=20
the professional societies that represent them have a great interest in=20
ensuring that research results are disseminated as immediately, broadly and=
=20
effectively as possible. Electronic publication of research results offers=
=20
the opportunity and the obligation to share research results, ideas and=20
discoveries freely with the scientific community and the public.

Therefore:
1.   We endorse the principles of the open access model.

2.   We recognize that publishing is a fundamental part of the research=20
process, and the costs of publishing are a fundamental cost of doing=
 research.

3.   Scientific societies agree to affirm their strong support for the open=
=20
access model and their commitment to ultimately achieve open access for all=
=20
the works they publish. They will share information on the steps they are=20
taking to achieve open access with the community they serve and with others=
=20
who might benefit from their experience.

4.   Scientists agree to manifest their support for open access by=20
selectively publishing in, reviewing for and editing for open access=20
journals and journals that are effectively making the transition to open=20
access.

5.   Scientists agree to advocate changes in promotion and tenure=20
evaluation in order to recognize the community contribution of open access=
=20
publishing and to recognize the intrinsic merit of individual articles=20
without regard to the titles of the journals in which they appear.

6.   Scientists and societies agree that education is an indispensable part=
=20
of achieving open access, and commit to educate their colleagues, members=20
and the public about the importance of open access and why they support it.
---

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Dr. Patrick O. Brown
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Stanford University School of Medicine, and
Public Library of Science

Ms. Diane Cabell
Associate Director
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School

Dr. Aravinda Chakravarti
Director, McKusick-Nathans Institute of
   Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins
   University, and
Editor, Genome Research

Ms. Barbara Cohen
Executive Editor
Journal of Clinical Investigation

Dr. Tony Delamothe
BMJ Publishing Group
United Kingdom

Dr. Michael Eisen
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
University of California Berkeley, and
Public Library of Science

Dr. Les Grivell
Programme Manager
European Molecular Biology Organization
Germany

Prof. Jean-Claude Gu=E9don
Professor of Comparative Literature,
University of Montreal, and
Member of the Information Sub-Board,
Open Society Institute

Dr. R. Scott Hawley
Genetics Society of America

Mr. Richard K. Johnson
Enterprise Director
SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition)

Dr. Marc W. Kirschner
Harvard Medical School

Dr. David Lipman
Director, NCBI
National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health

Mr. Arnold P. Lutzker
Lutzker & Lutzker, LLP
Outside Counsel for Open Society Institute

Ms. Elizabeth Marincola
Executive Director
The American Society for Cell Biology

Dr. Richard J. Roberts
New England Biolabs

Dr. Gerald M. Rubin
Vice President and Director, Janelia Farm
   Research Campus
Howard Hughes Medical Institute

Prof. Robert Schloegl
Chair, Task Force on Electronic Publishing
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Germany

Dr. Vivian Siegel
Executive Editor
Public Library of Science

Dr. Anthony D. So
Health Equity Division
The Rockefeller Foundation

Dr. Peter Suber
Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College
Open Access Project Director, Public
   Knowledge
Senior Researcher, SPARC

Dr. Harold E. Varmus
President, Memorial Sloan-Kettering
   Cancer Center
Chair, Board of Directors, Public
   Library of Science

Mr. Jan Velterop
Publisher
BioMed Central
United Kingdom

Dr. Mark J. Walport
Director Designate
The Wellcome Trust
United Kingdom

Ms. Linda Watson
Director
Claude Moore Health Sciences Library
University of Virginia Health System


ATTACHMENT: message.html!


[BOAI] Re: Bethesda statement on open access publishing

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 15:57:25 +0100


Threading: [BOAI] Bethesda statement on open access publishing from peters AT earlham.edu
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Bethesda statement on open access publishing from till AT uhnres.utoronto.ca

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Peter Suber wrote:

> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html ]
> Bethesda statement on open access publishing 

The Bethesda statement is very useful and timely, but 
it would be far more valuable

    (1) if the support for open access were generalized beyond the
    biomedical research community (where open-access publishing is already
    more advanced than in other disciplines, because of BMC and PLoS)
    to all the other disciplines and

    (2) if the support were not just sought or offered for open-access
    publishing but for self-archiving -- a solution that already applies
    to all disciplines, is in researchers' own hands, and will pave the
    way for universal open access.

Some comments on the various statements from the Bethesda meeting
below.

> [I'm forwarding an important statement on open access publishing from an
> April meeting of foundations, scientists, editors, publishers, and open
> access proponents. It was released on June 20. I will make sure that
> comments to the FOS Forum are known to the conference organizers. I
> participated in the conference and signed the document. I wish it
> went further on a few points, but it makes significant headway e.g. in
> asking foundations to pay the processing fees charged by open-access
> journals. The public and private funding agencies in the room agreed
> that this was something they could and should do to promote open access.
> --Peter Suber.]

Paying processing fees for existing open access journals is very helpful
and welcome, but there are still very few open access journals. What is
needed is immediate open access, even where there are no open access
journals. Funding the existing open-access journals is not a general
solution to the problem of open access. Promoting self-archiving is. 

    (a) The same research-funding agencies that are prepared to subsidize
    publications in open-access journals can also encourage or mandate
    immediate institutional self-archiving
    http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/

    (b) Although support for self-archiving by journal publishers is
    growing dramatically, the Bethesda statement would benefit from
    having this too a formal part of its platform, not just open-access
    publication.
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable.gif

> Summary of the April 11, 2003, Meeting on Open Access Publishing
> 
> The following statements of principle were drafted during a one-day
> meeting held on April 11, 2003 at the headquarters of the Howard Hughes
> Medical Institute in Chevy Chase, Maryland. The purpose of this document
> is to stimulate discussion within the biomedical research community on how
> to proceed, as rapidly as possible, to the widely held goal of providing
> open access to the primary scientific literature. Our goal was to agree on
> significant, concrete steps that all relevant parties --the organizations
> that foster and support scientific research, the scientists that generate
> the research results, the publishers who facilitate the peer-review and
> distribution of results of the research, and the scientists, librarians
> and other who depend on access to this knowledge-- can take to promote
> the rapid and efficient transition to open access publishing.

Focussing solely on open-access publishing, and not on research
self-archiving, means that the Bethesda statement omits one of the most
"significant concrete steps that all relevant parties... can take to
promote the rapid and efficient transition to open access..."

> A list of the attendees is given following the statements of principle;
> they participated as individuals and not necessarily as representatives
> of their institutions. Thus, this statement, while reflecting the
> group consensus, should not be interpreted as carrying the unqualified
> endorsement of each participant or any position by their institutions.
> 
> Our intention is to reconvene an expanded group in a few months to draft a
> final set of principles that we will then seek to have formally endorsed
> by funding agencies, scientific societies, publishers, librarians,
> research institutions and individual scientists as the accepted standard
> for publication of peer-reviewed reports of original research in the
> biomedical sciences.

It is to be hoped that (i) these principles will apply not only to the
biomedical sciences and that (ii) research self-archiving will also be
represented among them.

> The document is divided into four sections: The first is a working
> definition of open access publication. This is followed by the reports
> of three working groups.
> 
> Definition of Open Access Publication

It would be useful and informative to define "open access" and
the reason it is so important, desirable, and urgent, first. Then "open
access publication" can be defined as one of the ways of attaining 
open access -- and self-archiving another.

What is missing in the present statement is that self-archiving is (i)
an immediate means of attaining open access, it is (ii) a means open to the
authors of all published articles, and it is also (iii) an eventual means
of making the transition to universal open-access publishing. This has
to be made clear, because open-access publishing is a means of attaining
open access that is open only to those authors whose specialty already
has a suitable open access journal in which to publish their research,
whereas self-archiving is open to all fields. 

Even if one makes the most conservative estimate, 55% of
the articles currently appearing in the main 7000 journals
in all fields could already be openly accessible today:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable.gif
This percentage is vastly greater than the percentage of papers for
which there already exists a suitable open-access journal today. If,
along with encouraging publishers to create or convert to open-access
journals, the Bethesda statement equally encourages publishers to
support self-archiving, its contribution to the goal of open access
will be far more substantial.

> An Open Access Publication[1] is one that meets the following two
> conditions:
> 
> 1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free,
> irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to
> copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make
> and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible
> purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship[2], as well as the
> right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

But an extremely useful first step would be simply to make the author's
right to self-archive it on the web, openly accessible to all, a formal
part of the copyright agreement with the publisher.

> 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials,
> including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable
> standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial
> publication in at least one online repository that is supported by
> an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or
> other well-established organization that seeks to enable open access,
> unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving
> (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).

This seems redundant (and it also seems to be confusing open-access
with self-archiving).

> Notes:
> 
> 1. Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals
> or publishers.

This is confusing (and seems unnecessary). The text is the work. Access
to the text is what is at issue. Where the publisher provides the open
access, we have open-access publishing. Where the author provides the
open access, we have self-archiving.

> 2. Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue
> to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and
> responsible use of the published work, as they do now.

Again confusing (and seems unnecessary). How works are cited by scholars
is independent of how they access them (for-free or for-fee). And there
is and always has been no connection whatsoever between copyright
protection from theft-of-text (piracy) and copyright protection from
theft-of-authorship (plagiarism).
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.3

> Statement of the Institutions and Funding Agencies working group
> 
> Our organizations sponsor and nurture scientific research to promote
> the creation and dissemination of new ideas and knowledge for the public
> benefit. We recognize that publication of results is an essential part
> of scientific research and the costs of publication are part of the
> cost of doing research. We already expect that our faculty and grantees
> share their ideas and discoveries through publication. This mission is
> only half-completed if the work is not made as widely available and as
> useful to society as possible. The Internet has fundamentally changed
> the practical and economic realities of distributing published scientific
> knowledge and makes possible substantially increased access.

This is all correct. But what follows from it is that all this research
should be openly accessible. Open access publishing is not the only means
of attaining open access. It is not even the most widely available or
widely use means.

> To realize the benefits of this change requires a corresponding
> fundamental change in our policies regarding publication by our grantees
> and faculty:
> 
> 1. We encourage our faculty/grant recipients to publish their work
> according to the principles of the open access model, to maximize the
> access and benefit to scientists, scholars and the public throughout
> the world.

Again, this gives the incorrect impression that open-access publishing
is the only means of providing open access. It is open access to
their work that researchers and their institutions should be encouraged
to provide, whether by open-access publishing or self-archiving.

> 2. We realize that moving to open and free access, though probably
> decreasing total costs, may displace some costs to the individual
> researcher through page charges, or to publishers through decreased
> revenues, and we pledge to help defray these costs. To this end we
> agree to help fund the necessary expenses of publication under the open
> access model of individual papers in peer-reviewed journals (subject to
> reasonable limits based on market conditions and services provided).

This is fine by way of support for existing open-access journals
(and encouraging the creation or conversion of new ones) but it
completely overlooks everything else. Something is also needed to
encourage self-archiving where there are as yet no suitable open-access
journals. The numbers are critical here, for even just in biomedical
research, the number of articles for which there is not yet a suitable
open-access journal is an order of magnitude greater than the number for
which there is. If open access is the goal, and an urgent and immediate
one, then there should not be this one-sided and disproportionate emphasis
on what is right now a minoritarian solution (open-access publishing)
to the exclusion of the other solution (self-archiving) despite its
greater immediacy and scope.

> 3. We reaffirm the principle that only the intrinsic merit of the work,
> and not the title of the journal in which a candidate?s work is published,
> will be considered in appointments, promotions, merit awards or grants.

This is all very worthy, but completely irrelevant. Research impact and
rewards are not determined by whether or not a journal is open-access
but by the journal's track record for quality. A track record requires
time, and objective indicators of quality include rejection rates and
citation counts.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm

> 4. We will regard a record of open access publication as evidence of
> service to the community, in evaluation of applications for faculty
> appointments, promotions and grants.

This seems to directly contradict 3, preceding it. According to 3 it is the
work, not the journal-title that counts, in evaluation. Now whether or
not the journal is open-access is to count, in evaluation.

I suggest dropping both 3 and 4 and replacing them with the suggestion
that a natural extension of the existing evaluative criteria
(publish-or-perish and citation-impact) would be to encourage or
mandate maximizing impact by maximizing access (through open access).
The *two* ways to accomplish this are through publishing in open-access
journals or self-archiving.

> We adopt these policies in the expectation that the publishers of
> scientific works share our desire to maximize public benefit from
> scientific knowledge and will view these new policies as they are intended
> --an opportunity to work together for the benefit of the scientific
> community and the public.

Publishers should certainly be encouraged to support open access,
because of its great benefits to research and researchers. But there
are *two* ways they can support open access. One is to convert to
open-access publishing and the other is to support self-archiving. It
does not serves the interests of open access to suggest that there is
only one way a publisher can support open access.

> Statement of the Libraries & Publishers Working Group
> 
> We believe that open access will be an essential component of scientific
> publishing in the future and that works reporting the results of current
> scientific research should be as openly accessible and freely useable as
> possible. Libraries and publishers should make every effort to hasten this
> transition in a fashion that does not disrupt the orderly dissemination
> of scientific information.

Here too, the suggestion seems to be that the only way libraries can
hasten open access is by supporting open-access publishing. Yet there is
a great deal they can do for open access -- far more, in fact -- by
supporting institutional self-archiving too:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do

> Libraries propose to:
> 1. Develop and support mechanisms to make the transition to open access
> publishing and to provide examples of these mechanisms to the community.

There are good reasons to suggest that to support self-archiving is
not only to hasten open access but to hasten the transition to
open-access publishing.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1

> 2. In our education and outreach activities, give high priority to
> teaching our users about the benefits of open access publishing and open
> access journals.

But what about teaching users the benefits of the most direct means of
securing open access for their own research output, namely, by
self-archiving? Most users cannot create journals; and for those for 
whose research output no suitable open-access journal yet exists (i.e.,
the vast majority of users, in biomedical sciences as in all other
disciplines), self-archiving is the immediate option, and the only one.

> 3. List and highlight open access journals in our catalogs and other
> relevant databases.

How about listing and accessing institutional eprint archives containing
their research output?
http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/

> Journal publishers propose to:
> 
> 1. Commit to providing an open access option for any research article
> published in any of the journals they publish.

How about including, among the ways to commit to providing an open
access option, the formal support of self-archiving?

> 2. Declare a specific timetable for transition of journals to open
> access models.

This seems a worthy desideratum, but is it realistic at this time? Is an
interim period of self-archiving, in which the research community can
then make its desire for open access felt directly, through their own
actions, not a reasonable complement, at least, for this call for a
transition timetable? 

(This is not to say that those journals who do wish to commit to
transition timetables should not be given every possible support. Just
that this should not be the only option considered.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0697.html )

> 3. Work with other publishers of open access works and interested parties
> to develop tools for authors and publishers to facilitate publication of
> manuscripts in standard electronic formats suitable for archival storage
> and efficient searching.

This too is desirable and feasible in a broader strategy for open
access, including both open-access publishing and self-archiving.

> 4. Ensure that open access models requiring author fees lower barriers
> to researchers at demonstrated financial disadvantage, particularly
> those from developing countries.

Also provide self-archiving facilities for researchers at institutions
that cannot afford their own.

> Statement of Scientists and Scientific Societies Working Group
> 
> Scientific research is an interdependent process whereby each experiment
> is informed by the results of others. The scientists who perform research
> and the professional societies that represent them have a great interest
> in ensuring that research results are disseminated as immediately, broadly
> and effectively as possible. Electronic publication of research results
> offers the opportunity and the obligation to share research results,
> ideas and discoveries freely with the scientific community and the public.
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> 1. We endorse the principles of the open access model.
> 
> 2. We recognize that publishing is a fundamental part of the research
> process, and the costs of publishing are a fundamental cost of doing
> research.
> 
> 3. Scientific societies agree to affirm their strong support for the open
> access model and their commitment to ultimately achieve open access for
> all the works they publish. They will share information on the steps
> they are taking to achieve open access with the community they serve
> and with others who might benefit from their experience.
> 
> 4. Scientists agree to manifest their support for open access by
> selectively publishing in, reviewing for and editing for open access
> journals and journals that are effectively making the transition to
> open access.

How about self-archiving their own research publications, in their own
institutional research archives?

> 5. Scientists agree to advocate changes in promotion and tenure evaluation
> in order to recognize the community contribution of open access publishing
> and to recognize the intrinsic merit of individual articles without
> regard to the titles of the journals in which they appear.

Please see comments on the same point made as 3 and 4 in an earlier
section. This point weakens the case for open access by focusing on a
red herring.

> 6. Scientists and societies agree that education is an indispensable
> part of achieving open access, and commit to educate their colleagues,
> members and the public about the importance of open access and why they
> support it.

But the most direct educational message for researchers is left out,
namely, that they should all self-archive their own research
publications, in their own institutional eprint archives. Otherwise this
is an extremely one-sided message to the research community, and does
not the cause of open access the full service it might.

Stevan Harnad

> LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
> 
> Dr. Patrick O. Brown
> Howard Hughes Medical Institute
> Stanford University School of Medicine, and
> Public Library of Science
> 
> Ms. Diane Cabell
> Associate Director
> The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
> 
> Dr. Aravinda Chakravarti
> Director, McKusick-Nathans Institute of
> Genetic Medicine at Johns Hopkins
> University, and
> Editor, Genome Research
> 
> Ms. Barbara Cohen
> Executive Editor
> Journal of Clinical Investigation
> 
> Dr. Tony Delamothe
> BMJ Publishing Group
> United Kingdom
> 
> Dr. Michael Eisen
> Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
> University of California Berkeley, and
> Public Library of Science
> 
> Dr. Les Grivell
> Programme Manager
> European Molecular Biology Organization
> Germany
> 
> Prof. Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professor of Comparative Literature,
> University of Montreal, and
> Member of the Information Sub-Board,
> Open Society Institute
> 
> Dr. R. Scott Hawley
> Genetics Society of America
> 
> Mr. Richard K. Johnson
> Enterprise Director
> SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition)
> 
> Dr. Marc W. Kirschner
> Harvard Medical School
> 
> Dr. David Lipman
> Director, NCBI
> National Library of Medicine
> National Institutes of Health
> 
> Mr. Arnold P. Lutzker
> Lutzker & Lutzker, LLP
> Outside Counsel for Open Society Institute
> 
> Ms. Elizabeth Marincola
> Executive Director
> The American Society for Cell Biology
> 
> Dr. Richard J. Roberts
> New England Biolabs
> 
> Dr. Gerald M. Rubin
> Vice President and Director, Janelia Farm
> Research Campus
> Howard Hughes Medical Institute
> 
> Prof. Robert Schloegl
> Chair, Task Force on Electronic Publishing
> Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Germany
> 
> Dr. Vivian Siegel
> Executive Editor
> Public Library of Science
> 
> Dr. Anthony D. So
> Health Equity Division
> The Rockefeller Foundation
> 
> Dr. Peter Suber
> Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College
> Open Access Project Director, Public
> Knowledge
> Senior Researcher, SPARC
> 
> Dr. Harold E. Varmus
> President, Memorial Sloan-Kettering
> Cancer Center
> Chair, Board of Directors, Public
> Library of Science
> 
> Mr. Jan Velterop
> Publisher
> BioMed Central
> United Kingdom
> 
> Dr. Mark J. Walport
> Director Designate
> The Wellcome Trust
> United Kingdom
> 
> Ms. Linda Watson
> Director
> Claude Moore Health Sciences Library
> University of Virginia Health System


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

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

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


[BOAI] Re: Bethesda statement on open access publishing / lengthy comments

From: "Peter Graham" <Psgraham AT syr.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 11:52:13 -0400


I'm not sure I see the usefulness of extraordinarily verbose after-the-fact 
criticism of a positive public statement from the biomedical community.  
Especially in email, terseness counts.  And when trying to achieve larger ends, 
working positively before the fact helps a lot more than postmortem critiques 
of your allies directed at other allies.  And gets read more, too.  --pg

Peter Graham  Syracuse University Library  315/443-5530
222 Waverly Ave. Syracuse, NY 13244-2010  fax 315/443-2060 
<http://web.syr.edu/~psgraham/pgsite/pghome.html > GW 6/03



[BOAI] Re: Bethesda statement on open access publishing

From: Jim Till <till AT uhnres.utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 13:52:49 -0400 (EDT)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Bethesda statement on open access publishing from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

Re the principle that it's the intrinsic merit of a research report, not
the title of the journal in which the report is published, that should be
evaluated:

This principle is most commendable, but, how to implement it? As someone
who, in the past, has chaired a (biomedical) promotions committee at my
university, I can attest to the weight that's given, by members of
promotions committees, to the journal title (in the reference to an
individual article) as a proxy for the quality of the individual article.
And, of course, impact factors for journals are often used as proxies for
journal quality.

For open-access journals, what proxies might replace these
well-established ones? Access statistics for articles in open-access
journals seem likely to turn out to be useful indicators of impact. For
example, some biomedical reports may be of great interest not only to
other researchers, but also to practitioners, patients, policy-makers,
advocates, people in the media and interested members of the public. (But,
will such an indicator of 'impact' also provide a valid and reliable
measure of 'intrinsic merit'? 'Intrinsic merit' is a multi-dimensional
concept. An article that only a very few non-specialists read, e.g.
about superstring theory, can have great impact on a field).

I think that the principles in the Bethesda statements are very valuable,
and shouldn't be modified. But, such statements will probably have greater
impact if more attention is paid not only to commendable principles, but
also to practical approaches to their implementation.

Jim Till
University of Toronto

PS: Authors of individual articles in BMC journals can obtain statistics
on accesses to abstracts, full text and PDFs via a password-protected
webpage: <http://www.biomedcentral.com/my/manuscripts>.


Jun 2003, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Peter Suber wrote:
>
> > http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html ]
> > Bethesda statement on open access publishing

[snip]

> > 3. We reaffirm the principle that only the intrinsic merit of the 
work,
> > and not the title of the journal in which a candidate?s work is 
published,
> > will be considered in appointments, promotions, merit awards or 
grants.
>
> This is all very worthy, but completely irrelevant. Research impact and
> rewards are not determined by whether or not a journal is open-access
> but by the journal's track record for quality. A track record requires
> time, and objective indicators of quality include rejection rates and
> citation counts.
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm
>
> > 4. We will regard a record of open access publication as evidence of
> > service to the community, in evaluation of applications for faculty
> > appointments, promotions and grants.
>
> This seems to directly contradict 3, preceding it. According to 3 it is 
the
> work, not the journal-title that counts, in evaluation. Now whether or
> not the journal is open-access is to count, in evaluation.
>
> I suggest dropping both 3 and 4 and replacing them with the suggestion
> that a natural extension of the existing evaluative criteria
> (publish-or-perish and citation-impact) would be to encourage or
> mandate maximizing impact by maximizing access (through open access).
> The *two* ways to accomplish this are through publishing in open-access
> journals or self-archiving.

[remainder snipped]


[BOAI] How Research Funding Agencies Can Promote Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:21:45 +0100 (BST)


On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Prof Bruce Royan wrote:

> As an occasional lurker on these exchanges, can I ask what the role of the
> Research Councils is, or should be, in all this? They fund much of the
> research which is published, and they have an interest in the results of 
the
> research they fund being widely disseminated, rather than locked up in
> journals only accessible from institutions that can afford to pay 
(possibly
> with research council money :-). Is there a role for them in building Open
> Archive services for folk in institutions that are not doing this, or
> portals to the archives that are? Perhaps they are doing this already?

The role of the Research Councils should be to ensure that funded
research is not only published ("publish or perish") but made openly
accessible to all potential users worldwide. There are two ways they can
help in this regard. One is to mandate institutional self-archiving of
all refereed research:

   Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online
   RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives. Ariadne 35.
   http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/

The other is to support open-access journals:

    Re: Bethesda statement on open access publishing
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2878.html

There is progress on both these approaches, but open-access journals
seem to be an easier concept to grasp, even though they are not within
immediate universal reach, as self-archiving is. (It is for this reason
that although I fully support both BOAI approaches to open access --
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml -- I invest all my own
available time and energy into demonstrating the feasibility and benefits
of immediate self-archiving.)

    Maximizing university research impact through self-archiving
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm
    
        "Research funding agencies such as NSF or NIH (US), HEFCE or
        EPSRC (UK), NSERC, CFI or FRSQ (Canada), or CNRS or INSERM
        (France) need to encourage self-archiving as part of the normal
        research cycle, requiring not only that the research findings
        be published, as they already require, but that their visibility
        and usage be maximized by making them openly accessible through
        self-archiving."

Stevan Harnad

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

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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jisc development discussion forum
> Sent: 17 June 2003 16:20
> To: JISC-DEVELOPMENT AT JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?
> 
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:
> 
> > Probably of interest to readers of this list:
> > http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030616/03
> 
> In that article in The Scientist, "UC to launch open-access 
journals,"
> Catherine Zandonella writes:
> 
> > In a trend that could permanently alter the nature of scholarly
> > publishing, several top research universities are setting up
> > electronic superarchives to store and share their researchers'
> > data. Some universities see these "institutional 
repositories"
> > simply as a way to capture their intellectual output, but others
> > aim to use their repositories as a means of launching open-access
> > alternatives to conventional academic journals.
> 
> "Simply a way to capture their intellectual output"? Clearly the 
point
> of self-archiving refereed research has been completely missed here!
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm
> 
> Unfortunately, Zandonella's article simply propagates the growing
> wave of nonspecific euphoria about university repositories, which seems
> to be based on freely conflating distinct and not always compatible
> potential uses for such repositories.
> 
> In http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2837.html
> I suggested:
> 
> >sh>    The 5 distinct aims for institutional repositories are:
> >
> >sh>    I.   (RES) self-archiving institutional research output 
(preprints,
> >sh>         postprints and theses)
> >sh>    II.  (MAN) digital collection management (all kinds of 
digital
> >sh>         content)
> >sh>    III. (PRES) digital preservation (all kinds of digital 
content)
> >sh>    IV.  (TEACH) online teaching materials
> >sh>    V.   (EPUB) electronic publication (journals and books)
> >
> >sh>    As long as we keep blurring or mixing these 5 distinct aims, 
the
> >sh>    first and by far the most pressing of them, RES -- the 
filling of
> >sh>    university eprint archives with all university research 
output,
> >sh>    pre- and post-peer-review, in order to maximize its impact
> >sh>    through open access -- will be needlessly delayed (and so 
will
> >sh>    any eventual relief from the university serials budget 
crisis).
> 
> UC seems to be another instance of conflating I. (RES) and V. (EPUB).
> It is hard to discern whether this is just a case of (i) misunderstanding
> the essential feature of peer review -- which is that it must be an
> autonomous, outsourced, neutral-3rd-party service, otherwise it risks
> just becoming a house organ or vanity press -- or else a case of (ii)
> High (Wire Press) Hopes (Stanford Envy?): Universities seeking to make
> a bigger inroad into electronic publishing.
> 
> > This fall, the University of California (UC) plans to unveil just
> > such an option for its researchers: the ability to create and run
> > an open-access, peer-reviewed journal within the framework of its
> > eScholarship Repository.
> 
> But the question is this: Does the planet really need more peer-reviewed
> journals (it has 20,000 already, most of them toll-access). And is the
> best contribution universities can make with their 
"superarchives" to
> create new journals? Or would it be more useful (to both themselves and
> other universities) if they instead focused on making their own
> peer-reviewed research publications openly accessible by self-archiving
> them in their own eprint archives (RES)? Does it help either
> objective to conflate them under the one rubric of 
"superarchive" (not
> UC's word, but a predictable reaction of the press, if we keep freely
> admixing I. - V.). Especially at a time when archive frenzy is growing
> fast, but self-archiving is still growing too slowly!
> 
> > The repository, which is open to all users, will provide software
> > tools to automate the process of sending out papers for peer review;
> > the journal editors will determine the editorial policies and the
> > publication schedule. "We are trying to provide the continuum
> > of publishing alternatives," said Suzanne Samuel, eScholarship
> > Program coordinator for the California Digital Library, which runs
> > the repository for the UC system. (The eScholarship site already
> > contains one open-access journal, Dermatology Online Journal, which
> > was launched in 1995 and later moved to the UC site.)
> 
> As Gerry McKiernan's recent overview shows, there are *many* new
> pieces of software being created to automate peer review and journal
> publication, all designed to make journal publishing faster, cheaper,
> and more efficient.
> http://www.sissa.it/~marco/ws.htm
> What has this to do with any pressing problem facing the university
> (such as research access, research impact, or the serials crisis)?
> 
> > The idea for institutional repositories arose out of the need to
> > archive the increasing amount of data researchers now store on their
> > hard drives or display on their web sites. The data in the repository
> > are indexed with meta-tags that allow a variety of search strategies,
> > and the repository software provides the framework for checking data
> > in, storing it, and retrieving it via a web interface. A repository
> > can also serve as a preprint server, where researchers can solicit
> > comments on unpublished work.
> 
> But what does this research data-archiving -- an excellent idea
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm and a
> subset of RES -- have to do with EPUB? And why are unrefereed preprints
> (an excellent and welcome bonus) singled out for self-archiving when it
> is peer-reviewed, published postprints to which access is most urgently
> needed?
> 
> > An important development in the creation of repositories came last
> > fall with the launch of DSpace, a repository software platform
> > developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in
> > collaboration with Hewlett-Packard. The DSpace software can be
> > downloaded for free, and about 3400 individuals and institutions
> > have now done so.
> 
> And so can a lot of other software, as indicated earlier in this
> discussion thread. But what universities need now is not more software
> but a much clearer idea of what to do with it, and why!
> 
> > A consortium of universities, called the DSpace Federation,
> > is beta-testing the software. The Federation includes Columbia
> > University, Cornell University, Ohio State University, University
> > of Rochester, University of Washington, University of Toronto,
> > and Cambridge University.
> 
> Meanwhile, at least 72 universities are already running eprint archives,
> some for as long as 2 years: http://www.eprints.org/ So what? The
> archives need filling. And to understand why they need filling, and with
> what they need filling, I. - V. have to be separated and each dealt with
> in its own right, on its own agenda. Conflating the five just keeps
> everything at the beta-testing stage!
> 
> > The DSpace software contains no rules on who can enter data, what
> > kinds of data can be accepted, or who can access them. Instead,
> > the DSpace users set up "communities" and establish their 
own terms
> > of use.
> 
> What the university community needs is a clear idea of what these
> archives are for, and how to go about filling them. I may be wrong, but
> at this moment the rationale and urgency for RES (I), the self-archiving
> of research output, pre- and post-peer-review, seems to vastly outweigh
> that of the other four. But, more important, RES is so distinct from the
> other four that it would almost be better if we did not think of all
> five as just different "superarchive" functions, but as 
independent
> university functions in their own right. And I don't know about the
> other four, but I am pretty sure that RES is better served
> by having a lot of OAI-interoperable departmental archives
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html rather than one
> university monster-archive (especially if the central superarchive would
> conflate I - V!): Isn't that sort of integrable distribution of the
> burden part of the rationale for OAI interoperability?
> http://www.openarchives.org/
> 
> > One federation member that plans to use DSpace to further its goal of
> > providing free access to peer-reviewed content is Cornell University.
> > Among the reasons for doing this is the feeling that the existing
> > publishing model isn't serving universities well, said J. Robert
> > Cooke, professor of agricultural and biological engineering and dean
> > of the faculty at Cornell. "Long ago we outsourced publishing to
> > [commercial] publishers," said Cooke. "Now we need to take 
it back."
> 
> So (to put it graphically): Is Cornell University planning to make its
> Science and Nature publications open-access by self-archiving them (RES),
> or is it planning to create Cornell House-Journals to publish them in
> instead (EPUB), rather than of "outsourcing" them to the 
established
> peer-reviewed journals?
> 
> > Repositories can serve as a bargaining chip for universities in
> > the debate over the future of scholarly publishing, believes Hal
> > Abelson, MIT Class of 1922 professor of computer science. "We 
[the
> > universities] have something to bring to the table," said 
Abelson.
> 
> Fine, but what, exactly, are we bargaining about? Open access to our own
> peer-reviewed research output? But we can already have that by
> self-archiving it in our eprint archives (RES)! What has this to do with
> universities trying to get more involved in electronic publication
> (EPUB)?
> 
> Or does Hal Abelson mean universities should pressure publishers to
> make sure they have updated their copyright agreements to formally
> support self-archiving? That is a good idea, but there is considerable
> momentum there already, with 55% of publishers already formally
> supporting self-archiving, and most of the other agreeing if asked on an
> individual basis.
> 
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20
> Policies.htm
> By that token, the RES archives should be at least 55% full already!
> 
> But I agree that universities have leverage here -- although it has little
> to do with EPUB: It is because *authors* want and need maximal research
> impact that publishers have little choice but to support self-archiving,
> not because universities threaten to become journal-publishers [EPUB].
> http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html
> 
> > But Harold Varmus, president and chief executive officer of Memorial
> > Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and cofounder of the
> > Public Library of Science -- which later this year plans to publish 
two
> > new open-access biomedical journals -- is skeptical about the idea 
that
> > repositories themselves will help to bring about change. He 
emphasized
> > that journals, not repositories, are the primary record of science.
> > "They [repositories] are not going to replace the idea of having 
an
> > investigator write up results," said Varmus.
> 
> And Hal Varmus is of course right. Self-archived, unrefereed preprints
> in one's university eprint archive are merely vanity-press until/unless
> they are submitted for independent, expert peer-review by a peer-review
> service-provider with established quality-standards that would-be users
> of those findings can rely upon. Such a service has to be 
"outsourced"
> and it happens to be performed at the moment by 20,000 peer-reviewed
> journals, with their own established expertise, quality-standards and
> known track-records.
> 
> The problem is not "repatriating" that peer-review service. It 
has to
> continue to be an autonomous, 3rd-party service. The problem is access
> to its *outcome*: The refereed final drafts. Self-archiving solves that
> problem, not by providing a substitute for journals but by supplementing
> access to their full-text contents (toll-free).
> 
> Hal Varmus himself conflated EPUB and RES somewhat in the original
> version of his otherwise splendid and timely EBiomed proposal, but it
> is clear that this has since been thought through and sorted out.
> http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0509.htm#harn45
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0240.html
> 
> > Repositories won't make journals go away, agreed Rick Johnson,
> > enterprise director at the Scholarly Publishing and Academic 
Resources
> > Coalition (SPARC), a group that advocates an open model of scientific
> > publishing. But, said Johnson, "They begin a process of change 
that
> > will bring about emergence of different business models that support
> > science communication."
> 
> Self-archiving (RES) provides open access, immediately. That's what's
> urgently needed by the research community. New business models for
> refereed journal publishing may follow, but what is needed *now* is
> self-archiving.
> 
> > Johnson thinks the availability of preprints, data sets, and images
> > will spur communication and feedback among fellow scientists. 
"People
> > will say, 'Gee, my research is hidden behind toll gates today. If
> > it was not hidden, imagine what kind of impact it could have.'"
> 
> One can hardly disagree, now that SPARC is beginning to come round to
> that sensible view! (It is not that long since SPARC's only visible goal
> was lower journal prices!)
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0697.html
> 
> But it is not just, or even primarily, about (unrefereed) preprints,
> data sets and images. It is about toll-free access to *refereed
> research.* SPARC needs to be much clearer on that, otherwise they too are
> contributing to the gridlock that comes from conflating I. - V.
> 
> > At the very least, these superarchives will draw universities into
> > the ongoing debate over who should be the gatekeeper of scientific
> > information. But Pieter Bolman, vice president and director of
> > science, technology, and medical relations for Elsevier Science is
> > bullish about the continuing importance of subscription journals. He
> > said that although scientists may no longer need journals for
> > peer-review -- as they can set up their own systems for reviewing
> > papers -- they will continue to seek publication in the journals with
> > the best reputation.
> 
> I will bet a good deal of money that Pieter Bolman did *not* say anything
> as patently nonsensical as that! (Pieter?) This was a journalist's
> own contribution to the confusion with which this simple domain is so
> rife! Pieter is fully aware that "gate-keeping" has to be 
outsourced,
> and that it is its track-record for gate-keeping that gives a journal
> its reputation, not merely its name.
> 
> But this absurd picture of universities serving as their own
> gate-keepers (EPUB?) along with the idea that this will
> co-exist with journals subscribed to purely for their names is
> just one facet of the incoherent chimera -- like a 5-dimensional
> Escher-drawing -- that comes from conflating I. - V.! It's time
> to de-conflate.
> 
> > One issue that the emergence of repositories brings to the fore is
> > that of copyright. Most scholarly journals acquire copyright from the
> > author and grant certain rights in return. The exact terms of this
> > agreement vary widely, said Jane Ginsburg, an expert in copyright
> > law at Columbia Law School in New York.
> 
> Indeed. But the only *relevant* term insofar as the refereed research
> literature is concerned is whether or not they allow self-archiving --
> and, regarding *that*, journals are quickly, sensibly, and responsibly
> converging on the optimal and inevitable outcome:
> 
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20
> Policies.htm
> 
> > Many journals grant authors the right to post the article on a
> > personal or university web site. However, "It is one thing if a
> > bunch of individual professors put papers on their web sites, but
> > it might be another matter if a university does it," said 
Ginsburg.
> 
> No, in the age of OAI-interoperability it does not matter in the
> slightest whether it is individual professors or their universities who
> self-archive their papers -- as long as the site is OAI-compliant. But
> where universities and even governmental research-funding agencies can
> help is in extending their existing "publish or perish" 
carrot/stick
> to :"publish and self-archive" (for maximal research impact):
> http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/
> 
> > Mary Waltham, a former publisher of the Nature journals and
> > now a consultant for the publishing industry, can see that
> > happening. "Search tools are becoming better, and my own 
personal
> > view is that at some point, one will be able to search the Internet
> > and find copies of these articles in repositories," said 
Waltham.
> 
> Yes, but it is not search tools that will make that day come, but a
> systematic institutional policy of self-archiving those articles in those
> institutional repositories! To sort that out, II-V have to be
> disentangled from the all important I (RES).
> 
> Amen.
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 


[BOAI] NYTimes.com: Measure Calls for Wider Access to FederallyFinanced Research

From: "Gerry Mckiernan" <gerrymck AT iastate.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 09:45:24 -0500


Measure Calls for Wider Access to Federally Financed Research

June 26, 2003
By WARREN E. LEARY 

A group challenging the power of established scientific journals says 
legislation will be introduced to make the results of all federally financed 
research available to the public. 

The group, the Public Library of Science, which includes scientists, doctors, 
researchers and their public supporters, plans to announce legislation on 
Thursday that would give taxpayers greater access to scientific data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/26/politics/26LIBR.html?ex=1057638190&ei=1&en=24bfe95d73754002 

  Free access to registered readers

/Gerry 

Gerry McKiernan
Federally-Financed Librarian
Iowa State University 
Ames IA 50011

gerrymck AT iastate.edu 






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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .