Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[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] 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: 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] 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



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



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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


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

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


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

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

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

Margaret


ATTACHMENT: message.html!


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

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


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

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

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

      Best,
      Peter




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

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

ATTACHMENT: message.html!


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

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


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

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

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

All disciplines cite original literature.

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

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

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

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

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

Stevan Harnad



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

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


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

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

> So copyright is certainly not the problem.

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

Margaret



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

So copyright is certainly not the problem.

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

So worldwide awareness certainly is not the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

Stevan Harnad

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

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

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



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

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


ALA ANNUAL TORONTO

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

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


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

Our DG session will be led by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .