Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2003 00:34:07 +0100 (BST)


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

       On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

                    Stevan Harnad

As something of a veteran in the crusade for open access, I feel that I
have to point out to the growing number of open-access advocates that we
have lately been getting a little carried away with open-access publishing
-- as if it were the *only* way to attain open access, rather than
just one of two complementary ways (open-access self-archiving being
the other way).

This one-sided impression (that open-access = open-access publishing)
is all over the public press at the moment, in the US and Europe. This is
a (gentle) irony that historians will eventually have some fun sorting
out: How did it happen that when at long last we finally began to awaken
to the need for open access to research we first went on to risk losing
yet *another* decade waiting passively for open-access publishing to
prevail, when we could in the meanwhile already have had open access too? 

Waiting passively for what? For the 24,000 existing toll-access
journals http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ to either convert to
open-access of their own accord or to go belly-up in the face of new
open-access competitors (24,000 of them?) that would capture their
authorship. This, at a time when in reality there existed only about
500 open-access journals http://www.doaj.org/  -- which is less than 5% of
the refereed research literature even if we double the estimate.

The crux of the matter is this: 24,000 journals (or even ISI's hard-core
8,000) are unlikely to be induced to convert to open-access on the
strength of a press flurry, petitions, declarations, threats to
boycott, promises of government subsidy for open-access author-costs, US
congressional bills, and songs of praise for open access by the research
community and the media worldwide. For there is one glaring omission in
all of this: It is all based on passivity on the part of the research
community. 

(It is not even clear what percentage of researchers would actually be
willing to switch from publishing in their currently preferred journals
to open-access journals even if 24,000, rather than just 500, open-access
journals already existed for them to switch *to*!)

Why would publishers take the research community's much publicized
yearning for open access seriously as long as that yearning is expressed
only in this passive way, with the expectation that all the effort should
be made on their behalf by journal publishers, for the sake of this open
access that the researchers purport to need and want so much? Who would
not question the depth of the research community's desire for open access
as long as that desire keeps being voiced only vicariously, rather than
through self-help efforts, as if all possibility and responsibility for
action lay exclusively with publishers?

What will make publishers take the research community's expressed
wishes seriously will be *action* on the part of researchers, taking the
powerful self-help step that is actually within their own power to take
right *now*, in the interest of immediate open access: self-archiving
their own published research output. This will be the only credible (and
indeed irresistible) proof of the research community's desire for open
access. Moreover, it is guaranteed to provide immediate open access for
the research of every author who actually does self-archive. 

The only reason the research community is not yet taking this simple
self-help step in sufficient numbers -- they *are* taking it in
increasing numbers, but those numbers are as yet far from sufficient
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt -- is that
the research community does not yet *understand* that this more direct
means of gaining immediate open access for their own research output
(through institutional self-archiving) is already within their reach.

The one-sided emphasis that the research community is currently
placing on the 5% solution (open-access publishing), instead of
also promoting -- at least as vigorously -- the complementary 95%
solution (open-access self-archiving of the remaining 95% of their
refereed-research publications) is now becoming part of the problem
instead of the solution, leaving researchers and their institutions and
funders both inactive and unaware about what they could already be doing
in order to provide open access right now, rather than just waiting
passively and hoping that the 500 figure will somehow climb to 24,000
just on the strength of polemics and wishful thinking alone!

It will take a long time and a lot of effort to spawn or convert
24,000 journals, but their current full-text contents could already be
made openly accessible in to time, if researchers would only take the
action that is already open to them: immediate self-archiving.

The most common brake on researchers' taking this immediate
action is an inchoate worry about copyright. But the proof that
copyright cannot be the real obstacle is already available! Even on
the most conservative construal of the Romeo copyright-policy statistics
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
at least 55% of the research literature could already be self-archived
(and hence openly accessible) with the journal publisher's formal and official
blessing *today* (indeed, yesterday) -- yet researchers are still not
doing it in anywhere near the numbers that even the most conservative
percentage would allow! 

(The potential percentage is in reality much higher than 55%:
for the rest of the authors publishing in journals that do not
yet officially support self-archiving can simply *ask* their
publishers, on a per-article basis, to agree to their self-archiving;
many more publishers will agree. And that percentage can be raised
to 100% if the remaining authors, in those cases where their
publisher refuses, simply use the preprint-plus-corrigenda strategy
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 ).

But even as the 55% solution, self-archiving trumps the 5% solution by
an order of magnitude, and instantaneously! If only it were actually
practised. But it is not, yet. And that is what needs to be remedied.
It is not remedied by focusing all attention and effort on the 5%
solution!

In October, Germany will have a national policy meeting (through its
Max-Planck Societies, and in collaboration with the European Cultural
Heritage Organization) on "Open Access to the Data and Results of the
Sciences and Humanities" with a view to formulating and signing the
"Berlin Declaration," which is meant to be a model open-access policy
for Europe as well as the rest of the world. In November there are
Norwegian and UK national meetings on the same theme. The US has the
Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613) pending. It is so
important that all of these timely efforts give due weight to *both* of
the complementary open-access strategies, rather than just open-access
publishing.

Here is a simple, transparent, unified strategy for an institution,
or a research-funder, or a nation wishing to maximize the access to --
and thereby the impact of -- its research output:

    (1) All research output should be published in open-access journals
    if and when suitable ones exist (5% of research, currently) and

    (2) the other 95% of research output should be published in
    the researcher's journal of choice, but also self-archived in the
    author's institutional open-access archive -- now.

Our research group at Southampton and Loughborough will soon report
data on the current rate of growth of open access via each of these
two complementary strategies, in terms of the annual number of
articles that are openly accessible each way as a percentage of total
published articles per year so far. We will describe how Tim Brody's
citebase http://citebase.eprints.org/ and citation/usage correlator
http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php can be used to
measure the citation and usage impact of open-access articles and
authors, and how Mike Jewell's standardised open-access CV software
http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi can be used to encourage
and assess research output and impact. We will re-present Steve Lawrence's
finding http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/
that in computer science, open-access articles are cited 4.5 times as
often as toll-access articles. (And if our own data from an ongoing
collaboration with Charles Oppenheim are ready, we will report the open-
vs. toll-access impact-advantage for other disciplines, in controlled
pairwise comparisons of open vs toll access in the same journal and year,
for self-archived and non-self-archived articles, and across time.)

The cumulative message will be that the 95% solution (self-archiving),
if implemented now, would increase research visibility, research
impact, and hence research progress and productivity substantially.
We will will even estimate graphically how much research impact US,
UK, and French research -- and research in general -- are losing daily,
monthly and yearly, because of *lack* of open access, and how long it
would take to stanch that daily/monthly/yearly loss if the research
community pursued only the passive 5% solution, rather than also
actively self-archiving immediately!

A proposal for an institutional
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html 
and national 
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ 
self-archiving policy will also be described, to help focus and put into
context open-access efforts such as the Public Access to Science Act
http://publish.uwo.ca/~strosow/Sabo_Bill_Paper.pdf 
and the Bethesda Statement 
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm

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 



[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:05:38 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, [Identity Deleted] wrote:

> Stevan,
>
> [Identity Deleted], our electronic resources coordinator, was inspired by
> your quote of 55% of journals allowing self-archiving to ask why we don't
> just go back and retrospectively add that 55% to a University archive.
> [ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html ]
>
> I have been pushing [Ivy League University, identity deleted] to establish 

> such an archive.  I thought it was a great idea to get a collection of 
> content immediately.  Do you know of other Universities that are doing 
> this and if not, why not?

Thanks for your message. 

(1) The 55% figure comes from the Romeo sample of 7000+ journals, of
which 55% already officially support author/institution self-archiving.
(Many more journals will agree if asked.)
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

(2) In most cases the support probably extends to the retrospective legacy
literature as this is not a great source of potential revenue and many
more journals (e.g., Science) already support self-archiving after an
interval -- from 6 months to three years -- after the publication date.

(3) Although making a university's past research output openly
accessible is very valuable and desirable (and doing it is to be
strongly encouraged), making its *current* research output openly
accessible is even more valuable and desirable (and even more strongly
to be encouraged!).

(4) The 55% figure is actually an estimate of the *minimum* amount of
*current* research output that universities can already self-archive
immediately, without the need to make any further request of the
publisher, or any change in the copyright transfer of licensing
agreement. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1

(5) The challenge with self-archiving (whether current or legacy research
output) is not, and has never been, publishers or copyright. Publishers
will cooperate, in the interests of science and scholarship.
http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html

(6) The real challenge is establishing a systematic institutional
self-archiving policy that will ensure the speedy self-archiving of
research output. The library can help
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do 
especially by offering a proxy self-archiving service
e.g. http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/proxy_archive.html
but it is the university and its departments that need to strongly
encourage or even mandate self-archiving by its researchers
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html
their policy backed up by the research funding agencies
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/

But going after retrospective research is a good idea too. I hope
universities that have been implementing this will reply and share their
experience.

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 



[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 13:23:41 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

[Identity deleted] wrote:

> I agree with you completely that we need to persuade many more academic
> authors to self-archive, and... we have been working to achieve this. 

I know and appreciate that some funding and advocacy support has been
given to self-archiving worldwide: Yet though it may seem churlish,
I feel that -- relative to what is already within reach today -- *far*
more support needs to be given to self-archiving. If you asked for it
in percentage terms, I would say that of the support (both funding
and promotion) that funders and supporters are investing in open
access, something closer to 95% should be devoted to the 95% solution
(self-archiving) and something closer to 5% to the 5% solution (open
access publishing), if we are hoping for anything like proportionate
overall returns on our investment in open access to research. To
invest more in a lower-yield stock makes no sense (though I am sure
there are ways to divert my stock-market simile to make it appear
otherwise!).

> From your messages, you do not seem to allow for the benefit to the
> campaign for self-archiving from work with publishers and funding
> agencies.

As far as I am aware, the work with publishers and funding agencies is
currently all being directed at the 5% solution, open-access publishing:
Considerable effort is being invested in trying to persuade and help
publishers to become open-access publishers, and to persuade funding
agencies to support open-access publishing.

That is all fine, and welcome, but as a benefit to the campaign
for *self-archiving* this is rather like the benefit to a campaign
for universal vegetarianism that arises from trying to persuade beef
producers to produce broccoli instead: Yes, to the extent you succeed,
you indirectly benefit the campaign for universal vegetarianism, but not
nearly as much as you would if you also addressed the consumers directly,
rather than just the producers!

In fact, if anything, it is concertedly pursuing the 95% strategy now
(self-archiving) that will also benefit the open-access publishing
strategy in the long run, hastening and facilitating the transition.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1

Researchers and their institutions need to be persuaded to self-archive,
directly, and not just as a side-effect or spin-off of a campaign for
open-access publishing. The reason this is the 95% solution is that
every self-archived article is immediately eo ipso open-access -- and
the 95% of authors who have no suitable open-access journals to publish
in today can immediately self-archive their toll-access journal articles,
today, rather than wait for more open-access journals to be created, or
toll-access journals to be converted. 

In other words, self-archivers can bring about immediate, 100% open access
overnight, without waiting passively for the 5% of journals that are
open-access http://www.doaj.org/ to inch their way toward 100%, just
as consumers could immediately bring about universal vegetarianism by
switching from beef to broccoli without waiting passively for producers
to do it for them.

Yes, there is one concrete thing that addressing publishers and
funding agencies instead of addressing researchers can do to benefit
the self-archiving route to open access, and that is to help persuade
journals to support self-archiving -- as 55% of them already do! But,
as has been pointed out repeatedly, even without that extra 45% support,
55% already trumps 5% -- so that card needs to be played at least in
proportion to its strength!
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

Yet persuading publishers and research funders to support self-archiving
is *not* what is actually being done. The primary target in the current
ongoing campaign is open-access publishing, the 5% solution. The
self-archiving is only dangling there, as a vague afterthought. Its
logical and causal role is not clearly explained by open-access publishing
advocates. It is merely being mentioned as another "good thing" one
might want to do, for some reason or other! 

This is why the true 5%/95% proportion needs to be brought out in the
open now: To make it clear that far from being just *another good thing*
one might do, alongside open-access publishing, self-archiving is by far
the fastest and most direct route to open access itself, and needs to be
promoted directly, alongside open-access publishing, and in proportion
to its potential power, rather than just as a vague spin-off of the
campaign for open-access publishing.

> We are not only persuading publishers to move to open access for the
> publication opportunities but also to make open access (including
> self-archiving) more acceptable to the academic community.
> You know as well as any of us how academics cite the attitude of 
publishers
> as a reason for not risking self-archiving. 

The problem insofar as self-archiving is concerned is not one of publisher
"attitude." It is one of publisher *policy* -- actual as well as 
merely
perceived. And the policy in question is the one that distinguishes
the 55% of journals that already support self-archiving in their
copyright/licensing policies (Romeo's "blue" and "green" 
journals) from
the 45% that do not yet support self-archiving (Romeo's "white" 
journals).
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable.gif

But note that the policy in question is *not* the one that distinguishes
the <5% of journals that are already open-access from the >95% that are
not! Trying to persuade the publishers of the  remaining 45% of journals
to become blue or green is not the same as persuading the remaining 95%
of publishers to become open-access publishers! To change metaphors:
a campaign to persuade McDonald's to remove beefburgers from their menu
does not benefit a campaign to persuade them to add vegeburgers to their
menu -- and the road to 100% success for the former campaign is a long
and uncertain one, compared to the second.

So vague spin-offs from the campaign for open-access publishing are
not the way to get the white publishers to go blue or green: A clear,
motivated and proportionate compound strategy for open access needs
to be formulated out of the two open-access strategies. Both their
complementarity and their relative power must be made transparent. And
that means making it clear to toll-access publishers that converting to
open-access publishing is *not* the only way they can help support the
open access that the research community so much needs: Adopting a blue
or green publisher self-archiving policy also counts as support.

And (as demonstrated by the fact that even the 55% of annual articles
that are published in the blue and green of journals are still far from 
being self-archived yet), the real thing that is holding back
self-archiving is neither publishers' attitudes nor their policies. The
real problem is the *absence* of a systematic self-archiving policy
on the part of institutions and research funders: 

What is needed is strongly and systematically encouraged or even
*mandated* open access, as a matter of explicit institutional and
funding-agency policy, through a simple extension of the existing
carrot/stick policy that is called "publish or perish" to: 
"publish with
maximised impact." That means open access, and mandating it means it must
be provided by the researcher, whether by publishing in an open-access
journal (where possible: 5%) or by self-archiving (the remaining 95%).

The current draft of the otherwise welcome and promising Public
Access to Science Act in the US Congress -- Sabo Bill, H.R. 261
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2981.html -- is
needlessly proposing to mandate that all funded research publications must
be put in the *public domain* (renouncing all copyright protection),
which would be overkill even for the 5% solution, whereas all that
really needs to be mandated is that all funded research be made *open
access,* via either the 5% or the 95% strategy. The "Bethesda 
Statement"
is similarly focused entirely on the 5% strategy, calling for funding
agencies to cover the costs of publishing in open-access journals:
no mention of the cost-free 95% alternative at all, except as a way of
archiving articles that have been published in open-access journals!
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2878.html

> Likewise academics are worried about the attitude of funding agencies,
> and if we can get the funding agencies to support open access journals,
> this will also lead to more self-archiving. 

I think this is a red herring. Academics are worried about impact
factors, because they know that articles in journals with higher impact
factors carry more weight (with both funding agencies and promotion
committees) than articles in journals with lower impact factors. Impact
factors come from journal track-records for quality. They have nothing
whatsoever to do with journal cost-recovery policy. 

(It is *new* journals, whether online or on-paper, whether toll-access
or open-access, that start out with a handicap, until they establish
a track-record. No a-priori lobbying of funding agencies can or should
change this.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2415.html)

If we want to address academics' worries about research impact, we
should be persuading them to self-archive, in order to enhance the
impact of their own research immediately, regardless of which journal
it appeared in.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm

Hence it is self-archiving itself that funding agencies should be
persuaded to favour, not certain new journals, simply on account of
their cost-recovery models!  http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/

> The two strategies are inter-twined and the situation is not 
> as black-and-white as your 5%/95% analogy.  

It is not an analogy but a realistic estimate of the relative scope and
power of the two complementary open-access strategies. The two strategies
are indeed intertwined, in fact complementary, but in a very concrete and
specific way: If the goal is 100% open access for all refereed journal
articles, as soon as possible, then the optimal compound strategy for
all authors is:

    (1) Publish your articles in open-access journals whenever a suitable
    one exists (<5% currently) 
    and 
    (2) publish the rest of your articles in toll-access journals
    (>95%) as you do already, but self-archive them as well, in your
    own institution's open-access eprint archives
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html

Advocates of open access should, correspondingly, promote both
complementary strategies, intertwined (and apportioned) as above.

As to the black/white nature of the 5%/95% dichotomy: It is not
black/white, it is 5% light-gray and 95% dark-gray! And it accurately
reflects the relative scope, speed and power of the two open access
strategies today.

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 


[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 18:26:15 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

There will be an Open Access conference October 20-22 in Berlin. Below
is a URL for the conference, followed by the abstract of my own paper
(to be given in session 4.3):

        OPEN ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE IN THE SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
    (organized by the Max Planck Society in association with ECHO)
        http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin1.htm
        http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/index.htm
                October 20 - 22, 2003, Berlin

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My own paper will be entitled:

    On the Need to Support Both Open-Access Strategies:
    Open-Access Publishing (P) and Open-Access Self-Archiving (S)

    Stevan Harnad

    ABSTRACT: It has taken a very long time for the research community
    to at last awaken to the importance of, the need for, and the
    attainability of toll-free online access to the full text of all
    peer-reviewed research articles for all researchers ("open
    access"). There are two roads to open access: (P) Open-Access
    Publishing and (S) Open-Access Self-Archiving. It would be a great
    pity, and a great loss for open-access and research impact, if
    today's long-overdue open-access initiatives were now to be focused
    exclusively, or even primarily, on Open-Access Publishing (P), which
    may be the easier concept to understand, but is the slower, more
    indirect and more uncertain of the two means of attaining open access
    today. Open-access publishing requires 3 steps:

        (P1) creating or converting 23,500 open-access journals (there
        are only 500 open-access journals today, and 23,500 toll-access
        journals),

        (P2) finding a means of covering open-access publication costs
        (varying from <$500 to >$1500 per article), and

        (P3) persuading the authors of each of the 2,500,000 refereed
        research articles published annually to publish them in these
        23,500 new open-access journals instead of in the 23,500
        established toll-access journals.

    Open-access self-archiving requires only  one step:

        (S1) persuading the authors of each of the annual 2,500,000
        refereed research articles to self-archive them in addition to
        publishing them in the established 23,500 toll-access journals.

    As 55% of the established journals already support self-archiving
    (and many more will agree if asked), 

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

    and as at least three times as many articles are open-access today
    because their authors have self-archived them than because they
    have been published in an open-access journal, 

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt

    it is undeniable that self-archiving is the faster, more direct,
    and more certain of the two means of attaining open-access
    today. Moreover, self-archiving is probably also the single most
    powerful means of hastening us all toward the era of universal
    open-access publishing! The optimal joint open-access strategy that
    the Berlin Declaration should accordingly support and promote is
    that all researchers should: 

        (P) publish in an open-access journal today wherever a suitable
        open-access journal is available today;

        and

        (S) wherever a suitable open-access journal is not available
        today, publish in a toll-access journal but also self-archive
        the article in your institutional open-access archive today.

    Fully support both open-access publishing (P) and open-access
    self-archiving (S).

Harnad, S. (2003) Electronic Preprints and Postprints. Encyclopedia of
Library and Information Science Marcel Dekker, Inc.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/eprints.htm 

Harnad, S. (2003) Online Archives for Peer-Reviewed Journal
Publications. International Encyclopedia of Library and Information
Science. John Feather & Paul Sturges (eds). Routledge. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archives.htm 

Harnad, S. (2003) Self-Archive Unto Others as Ye Would Have Them
Self-Archive Unto You. 
The Australian Higher Education Supplement. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html

Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online
RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: 
Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper
and easier. Ariadne.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm

Harnad, S. (2003) Maximising Research Impact Through Self-Archiving.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stevan Harnad
Chaire de Recherche du Canada
Centre de Neuroscience de la Cognition (CNC)
Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Montreal, Quebec,  Canada  H3C 3P8
tel: 1-514-987-3000 2461#
fax: 1-514-987-8952
harnad AT uqam.ca
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/





[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 16:40:50 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

        Scotomata in the Open Access Movement

A blind spot seems to be growing at the *center* (not the edges)
of the Open-Access-Publishing (OApub) road to Open Access (OA). OApub is a
valid and welcome road to OA, but in the minds of many of its proponents
the idea seems to have grown that OApub *is* OA, and that *only* OApub
is OA.

As a result, because OApub also seems to be a much easier concept
for researchers to understand than Open-Access Self-Archiving (OAarch),
and because this easier concept has now also trickled through to some
research funding bodies, legislators, and even the popular press --
Open Access (OA) itself, despite the superficial signs of its growth
and progress, is now again at risk of being detoured into yet another
decade of needless delay.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt

Part of the problem is that OApub has at least three substantial hurdles
to surmount:

    (OApub-1) OA journals have to be created/converted 
    http://www.doaj.org/

    (OApub-2) Funding sources must be found for paying the author charges
    for publishing in those OA journals (hence the "Bethesda 
Statement"
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2878.html ), and

    (OApub-3) Authors must be persuaded to publish in those OA journals
    (hence the Sabo Bill
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html ).

This would all be fine and as it should be were it anywhere near the
truth that OApub was indeed the only, or easiest, or most direct,
or surest road to OA. But none of that is the case! Not only
is there another road, but that other road is easier, more direct,
and surer. It calls for only one step, not three or more, namely:

    (OAarch-1) Authors must be persuaded to self-archive.

The archives are already there (but near-empty) for the making or
taking. At least 55% of publishers already support OAarch, and no further
funding or journal-creation, -conversion, or -renunciation is needed.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt

But if one is strongly committed to OApub as the *only* road to achieve
OA, or the main one, one will not have any inclination to stress the
*other* road to OA, let alone that it is faster, easier, more direct
or surer!

Worse, OAarch may not be just a blind spot for OApub: it may even be
perceived as an obstacle by some OApub advocates: For unless OAarch can
somehow be minimized or dismissed as an unstable, anarchic, impractical,
even *illegal* non-starter, there is a chance that OApub advocates may
have to face the possibility that putting all or even most of the emphasis
on OApub would be premature, and that OAarch, apart from being the surer
road to immediate OA, might even be the surer road to eventual OApub!

I think the dual OA algorithm 

    (1) publish your articles in an open-access journal wherever available
    (<5%) 
and
    (2) self-archive the rest of your articles (>95%) 

captures the true realities and possibilities and probabilities, and in
their true proportions.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt

But OApub leaves OAarch entirely out of its unilateral strategies and
desiderata -- or, worse, OApub portrays OAarch merely as a way to offload
the archiving and access burdens of OApub journals!

I have been on the OA circuit a long time. I have a good sense by now of
the maddeningly slow and slow-witted pace of progress toward OA, and
how Zeno's Paralysis, mutating in a Protean way with every apparent
step forward, keeps conspiring to side-track our progress toward this
long overdue and long accessible goal. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#8

It is accordingly important that all open-eyed open-access advocates
now try to do everything we can to make sure that the 95% solution is
*understood* to be the 95% solution that it is, and is given 95% of the
open-access-seeking community's attention and efforts. The money is not
with us -- I don't have the PLoS's $9 million, nor even the BOAI's 3 --
but fortunately OAarch does not depend on money but only on understanding,
and the action flowing naturally from that understanding.

Now to comments.

> [Re. Butler's article on the authorship row at NEJM]
> https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/157.html
>
>anon>  [The authors] could have published the paper
>anon>  in NEJM and still achieved open access to the paper through
>anon>  self-archiving. One of the great virtues
>anon>  of self-archiving is the way it gives authors the freedom to
>anon>  publish in any journal without sacrificing the benefits of
>anon>  open access. This may be a blind spot.

This is indeed the OApub blind spot, and one immediately thinks of King
Solomon: Do OApub authors seek immediate OA (for their own work and
everyone else's) or are they merely doing public posturing for OApub?

But, as I said, anosognosia dictates that this must remain a blind spot,
for illuminating it would amount to recognizing that it is OAarch and not
OApub that deserves most of our OA efforts right now -- if we want to
maximize the returns on our efforts, in terms of immediate OA.

The rationalization -- in neurology they call it "confabulation" -- 
that
protects this blind spot is that it would be somehow "unstable" or
"short-term" to pursue OAarch full-speed: There would still be a 
long-term
day of reckoning to face in the transition to OApub, so we might as well
face it now.

Well that is precisely the *wrong* reasoning, for it not only needlessly
delays (yet again) immediate OA, even after having at long last awakened
to its merits and desirability, but it is based on the vague and
unexamined (and, I think, incorrect) notion that somehow it will be more
natural or more stable to make a direct transition from toll-access
publishing (TApub) to OApub than to have the transition mediated,
facilitated, indeed *driven* by OAarch, gradually.
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1

OApub enthusiasts seem to be focused only on creating new OA journals
(and trying to beg or bully TA journals to convert to OA). That may be
fun. It may be more satisfying than trying to beg or bully researchers
to self-archive -- but it certainly will not bring us OA faster! Rather
the contrary. It is reducing the perceived pressure to self-archive,
researchers resigning themselves instead to waiting, passively, for more
OA journals to be created or converted for them.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html

>anon1>     NEJM at least applied their principles correctly
>anon1>     over the authorship issue.
>
>anon2>  I don't agree that NEJM applied its own principles
>anon2>  correctly -- or perhaps we just disagree on what its principles
>anon2>  were. NEJM made it sound as though its responses were forced
>anon2>  by copyright law. But copyright law does not (1) stop a journal
>anon2>  from permitting open access or (2) stop a journal from letting
>anon2>  an author withdraw his name from a co-authored article.

I would agree entirely that the "principles" that were invoked there 
were
self-serving, and that this is not the first time NEJM has done that
sort of thing:
    http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001701/00/harnad00.scinejm.htm
    http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00001703/00/harnad00.lancet.htm
However, no matter how whole-heartedly one advocates OA (and few will
fault me for half-heartedness in this!), can anyone deny that it is *not*
a journal's moral duty to become an OA journal if it does not wish to?

Never mind what rationale or rationalization the journal cites for
declining to become an OA journal (be it some self-serving invocation of
copyright law and copyright protection, or some spurious coupling with
peer-review and quality-control, or with preservation and perpetuity --
or even bonafide worries about the risks of making a radical change in its
business model): All the journal is *really* doing is declining to
convert to becoming OA publishers.

Surely they have that right. And if you or I were the publishers of NEJM,
we would decline too! But (assuming we still had command over our
souls, and did not become anosognosic, ex officio, to the obvious benefits
of OA to research and researchers), what we would instead do first would
be to agree to become (Romeo) *green* (OAarch-friendly) publishers,
on the rationale that:

   "Yes, OA is optimal for research and researchers. I don't
   wish to deny or obstruct that. So if a researcher wants OA so badly, I
   won't stop him from having it: He may self-archive. But why should *I*,
   as publisher, take on the added needless risk and burden of converting
   *now* to OA publishing, an untested model, and highly threatening to
   my existing revenue stream and modus operandi, when the researchers,
   who purport to want OA so much, don't even bother to do what is within
   their own power to do, today, in the interests of open-access to their
   work, *and with my blessing, as publisher*! Let them self-archive,
   and then if OA eventually prevails, I will gradually adapt to it
   in whatever way proves necessary. But putting a moral shotgun to
   my head, and my head alone, to convert to OApub at this time, seems
   as churlish as it seems unnecessary."

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

And *is* unnecessary, I might add. It is a needless hobby-horse, being
ridden instead of encouraging the self-help that is within the reach of
the research community. (I am guilty of once having taken a similar
moral line; but that was years ago, when things had not yet come into clear
focus. Indeed, let's not forget that I was among the very first to propose
the OApub "business" model -- author-end publication fees instead of
reader-end access-tolls [Harnad 1995]. 

        Harnad, S. (1995) Electronic Scholarly Publication: Quo
        Vadis? Serials Review 21(1) 70-72 (Reprinted in Managing
        Information 2(3) 1995).
    http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/16/91/index.html 
    http://library.caltech.edu/publications/scholarsforum/050899sharnad.htm
    http://www.trauma-pages.com/harnad96.htm
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0402.html
    http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue8/harnad/
    http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/nature.html
    http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
    http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0704.htm

But it has since become clear that conversion to OApub is not the fastest
or surest way to OA: OAarch is; and that OAarch itself will eventually
lead to OApub too -- but meanwhile we will already have OA!)

Stevan Harnad

> >>Open-access row leads paper to shed authors
> >>
> >>DECLAN BUTLER
> >>
> >>A spat between the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and one 
of the 
> >>leaders of a movement for open access to the scientific literature 
has 
> >>resulted in the journal rejecting a paper on kidney transplants at 
the 
> >>last minute - and immediately re-accepting it without the names of 
four of 
> >>the original authors.
> >>
> >>Caught up in the disagreement is Minnie Sarwal, a young researcher 
at 
> >>Stanford University School of Medicine in California, the lead 
author of 
> >>the paper, "Molecular heterogeneity in acute renal allograft 
rejection 
> >>identified by DNA microarray profiling"(M. Sarwal, et al. N. 
Engl. J. 
> >>Med. 349, 125-138; 2003), which was finally published on 10 July.
> >>
> >>One of her Stanford co-authors, Patrick Brown, says he wanted the 
paper 
> >>to be sent to an open-access journal, but reluctantly agreed to 
the NEJM 
> >>as this was important for Sarwal's career. Brown is a co-founder 
of the 
> >>Public Library of Science (PLoS), which launches its first 
open-access 
> >>journal next month. Papers published in PLoS journals are freely 
> >>available from the time at which they are published, whereas most 
> >>journals make papers available only to subscribers, for a period 
of time 
> >>at least - six months in the case of the NEJM.
> >>
> >>Brown says that he insisted that the NEJM publish the paper under 
the 
> >>terms of the PLoS open-access licence, which stipulates that the 
authors 
> >>retain copyright but agree to allow the unrestricted use, 
distribution 
> >>and reproduction of the article in any form, provided that the 
original 
> >>work is properly cited.
> >>
> >>The terms on which the paper was originally accepted are now hotly 

> >>disputed, however. When Brown received the galley proofs in June, 
a 
> >>sentence - "This article is published under the terms of the 
PLOS open 
> >>access license" - had been deleted from a previously agreed 
edit of the 
> >>paper. Jeffrey Drazen, editor-in-chief of the NEJM, says that the 
> >>sentence was only spotted at the last minute, and was 
unacceptable.
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>Drazen's decision to delete the PLoS rider presented Brown with a 
> >>dilemma. He says that he wanted to withdraw the paper in protest, 
but 
> >>felt that the results were important, and should be published 
without 
> >>further delay. Sarwal also did not want to retract the paper, as 
she had 
> >>distributed the galleys in confidence in support of a grant 
proposal.
> >>
> >>Instead, Brown called Drazen and demanded that his name and that 
of three 
> >>other authors be withdrawn from the paper, and that this be 
explained in 
> >>the published manuscript. Drazen refused. In a 5 June e-mail to 
Brown, he 
> >>wrote: "We are withdrawing acceptance because all eleven 
original authors 
> >>signed a letter, dated October 22, 2002, certifying that they were 
the 
> >>sole authors of the work. Thus, we cannot subsequently represent 
to our 
> >>readers that the remaining seven authors are the only authors of 
the 
> >>entire paper."
> >>
> >>The paper was rejected, and a new one accepted, after Brown asked 
Drazen 
> >>to reconsider, suggesting that the deleted authors be acknowledged 
as 
> >>having contributed to the experiments, and sharing responsibility 
for the 
> >>results.
> >>
> >>Drazen says that he agreed to re-accept the paper only after 
Sarwal 
> >>confirmed that the new authorship represented the sole authors of 
the 
> >>work, with Brown's team being important contributors. The paper 
was 
> >>immediately published. Brown subsequently contacted Nature to 
persuade 
> >>this journal to cover the story.
> >>
> >>The spat has resulted in name-calling on both sides. Brown alleges 
that 
> >>the events constitute a "clear and documented case of 
editorial 
> >>misconduct in the handling of an article", and that the 
change in 
> >>authorship is "manuscript laundering".
> >>
> >>In a statement, the NEJM asserts: "It is unfortunate that Dr 
Brown chose 
> >>to use important medical research affecting renal transplant 
patients to 
> >>generate publicity for his planned publishing ventures. A 
researcher of 
> >>his experience knows well that the Journal cannot selectively 
ignore 
> >>copyright laws so that individual authors can draw attention to a 
> >>personal cause. He placed his desire to promote his personal 
interest 
> >>above his responsibility to his research colleagues."
> >>
> >>For her part, Sarwal says: "I am just a young scientist 
trying to do good 
> >>science and feel terrible that any of this occurred."
> 


[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:28:07 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from peters AT earlham.edu
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from peters AT earlham.edu
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Barbara Kirsop wrote:

> they DID print the letter - today (Oct 9th)....
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1058838,00.html

Bravo Stephen Pinfield, and Barbara Kirsop, and Bravo Guardian! 

Now back to the hard work of informing and activating the research
community.

(Some of the other letters show signs of the familiar misunderstandings:
mixing up open access with selective developing-world toll-subsidies
-- welcome, but not at all the same thing as open-access; mixing up
open access with university-restricted institution-wide toll-access;
imagining that open-access journal-costs are to paid from the author's
pocket! and so on. We still have our work cut out for us!) 

Stevan Harnad

PS I am preparing an extensive critique and corrective concerning the
original Guardian article. Posting shortly.

---------------------------
> Stevan Harnad wrote:
> 
> >Dear Stephen [Pinfield],
> >
> >Your letter says exactly what needed to be said. It's a great pity the
> >Guardian did not print it. But the press is extremely superficial and
> >actually hasn't the faintest idea of what is afoot or at issue here: 
it
> >only has an ear for sensation. But it is the research community, not 
the
> >press or even the general public, that needs to be informed, and needs
> >to come to understand this. With your permission I'd like to include
> >your letter with a posting I am preparing concerning the Guardian 
article.
> >
> >>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:04:51 +0100
> >>From: Stephen Pinfield <Stephen.Pinfield AT 
nottingham.ac.uk>
> >>Subject: Re: Letter to the Guardian
> >>
> >>Letter to the Guardian.  
> >>Sent Monday 6th October at 4.56 pm.  
> >>Not printed.
> >>
> >>"Setting up new open-access journals is one way of trying to 
ensure that
> >>scientific research is free to all (Scientists take on the 
publishers,
> >>October 6).  The problem is that new journals take at least five 
years
> >>to establish themselves in their research community.  Another way 
of
> >>improving scientific communication is for authors to deposit their 
own
> >>papers in open-access repositories run by their university or 
subject
> >>community. Papers can be 'self archived' in this way at the same 
time
> >>(or before) they are published in conventional journals. This can
> >>happen now.  Around the world many universities are currently 
setting
> >>up such repositories.  One such initiative, SHERPA, involving 
several
> >>UK research-led universities is already underway 
(www.sherpa.ac.uk).
> >>
> >>Stephen Pinfield
> >>Assistant Director of Information Services 
> >>University of Nottingham
> >>Web http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~uazsjp/


[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:34:00 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

[Forwarding from Mike Eisen on the AmSci list.  --Peter.]


[Stevan Harnad wrote:]
 > Whether the digital text (including data) of an article is made openly
 > accessible by being published in an open-access journal or by being
 > published in a toll-access journal but being self-archived in an
 > open-access archive is irrelevant: Either way, the data reported in it
 > are available to be used computationally. Don't confuse the use and
 > re-use of data with the use of the *text* to generate other text (other
 > than by quoting it): Any other re-use of text is plagiarism (i.e., if it
 > is not quotation). Text, unlike data and software code, cannot be
 > reprocessed and made one's own: It can only be cited and quoted.
 >      http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2967.html


Stevan-

What do you mean "don't confuse the re-use of data with the use of 
text"?
These are exactly the same thing. There are two goals for open access
publishing. The first is free access for all to the scientific publications.
The second is the ability to treat text as data - something that you deride.

If you think that the only possible use of text is to cite and quote than
you have completely missed the potential of open access publishing. If all
we accomplish is to let people read any paper they want, we will have
accomplished a lot, but we will still have failed. The true potential of
open access publishing is the ways in which we can go beyond simply being
able to read papers for free online.

Searching the full-text of articles is an obvious example of a use of text
that goes beyond citing and quoting. And searching is only a trivial example
of a use of the content of scientific publications. Scientific publications
are not just words - thet contain knowledge, and the type of use Richard is
referring to deals not with the data described in a paper, but with the
knowledge contained in the paper itself- ideas, methods, results and
insights.

The open archives movement is focussed on making it possible for people to
read individual works for free. Open access publishing is focussed on this
task, as well as the more important goal of ensuring that the contents -
data as well as text - of all scientific publication are available not only
for people to access, but for them to use. So long as self-archiving
focusses only on access, it will not realize the full potential of
electronic publishing to transform how we use the scientific literature.

-Michael

Michael Eisen, Ph.D. (mbeisen AT lbl.gov)

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California at Berkeley
http://rana.lbl.gov

Lead the Next Scientific Revolution
Publish Your Best Work in PLoS Biology
www.plos.org


[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Peter Suber <peters AT earlham.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 14:32:42 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

[Forwarding from Richard Durbin on the AmSci list.  --Peter.]


I have been watching this [AmSci] mailing list for some time.

Although I applaud open archiving, from my point of view open access
publishing is what is needed in the long run.

This is because the key property is not that everyone can get at a copy
of a publication, but rather that people can use information in it
computationally, producing extracts, syntheses, new indexes etc.  This
is now possible.

I come from the community that led open release of data in genomics: the
C.elegans genome mapping then sequencing project, followed by the human
genome project.  The real value of the way that genome data such as the
human genome sequence is available is that people can use it and build
on it.  Building on publications used to be open, because the only way
to do it was to read and then write something else (e.g. a review or a
new paper with a new idea).  And a subscription cost was reasonable
historically because most of the costs were in printing and
distribution.  Now, at least in biological science, a lot of valuable
data are published in papers in tables and figures, and people are
developing computational tools that can use this information, and even
the free text.  (See www.textpresso.org for an example of the latter.)
So there are ways to use the information in papers for new science, but
to do this we need much more open access to the literature.

Research funding is provided to generate outputs that others can build
on.  Funders, and the rest of the system, want publication to be as
unconstrained as possible, and the only reasons that we haven't yet
taken advantage of electronic publishing to make things less constrained
are historical inertia and the commercial interests of some publishers
(see last week's Wellcome Trust report).

So, for me, Open Archiving is just a tactical move to keep the
publishers moving to the larger goal of changing scientific publishing
to a better and more natural model, which is possible now with the
network and electronic publishing.

Richard Durbin
Head of Informatics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute

Stevan Harnad wrote:
 >         Scotomata in the Open Access Movement
 >
 > A blind spot seems to be growing at the *center* (not the edges)
 > of the Open-Access-Publishing (OApub) road to Open Access (OA). OApub is 
a
 > valid and welcome road to OA, but in the minds of many of its proponents
 > the idea seems to have grown that OApub *is* OA, and that *only* OApub
 > is OA.
 >
 > As a result, because OApub also seems to be a much easier concept
 > for researchers to understand than Open-Access Self-Archiving (OAarch),
 > and because this easier concept has now also trickled through to some
 > research funding bodies, legislators, and even the popular press --
 > Open Access (OA) itself, despite the superficial signs of its growth
 > and progress, is now again at risk of being detoured into yet another
 > decade of needless delay.
 > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt
 >
 > Part of the problem is that OApub has at least three substantial hurdles
 > to surmount:
 >
 >     (OApub-1) OA journals have to be created/converted
 >     http://www.doaj.org/
 >
 >     (OApub-2) Funding sources must be found for paying the author charges
 >     for publishing in those OA journals (hence the "Bethesda 
Statement"
 >     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2878.html ), and
 >
 >     (OApub-3) Authors must be persuaded to publish in those OA journals
 >     (hence the Sabo Bill
 >     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html ).
 >
 > This would all be fine and as it should be were it anywhere near the
 > truth that OApub was indeed the only, or easiest, or most direct,
 > or surest road to OA. But none of that is the case! Not only
 > is there another road, but that other road is easier, more direct,
 > and surer. It calls for only one step, not three or more, namely:
 >
 >     (OAarch-1) Authors must be persuaded to self-archive.
 >
 > The archives are already there (but near-empty) for the making or
 > taking. At least 55% of publishers already support OAarch, and no further
 > funding or journal-creation, -conversion, or -renunciation is needed.
 > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt
 >
 > But if one is strongly committed to OApub as the *only* road to achieve
 > OA, or the main one, one will not have any inclination to stress the
 > *other* road to OA, let alone that it is faster, easier, more direct
 > or surer!
 >
 > Worse, OAarch may not be just a blind spot for OApub: it may even be
 > perceived as an obstacle by some OApub advocates: For unless OAarch can
 > somehow be minimized or dismissed as an unstable, anarchic, impractical,
 > even *illegal* non-starter, there is a chance that OApub advocates may
 > have to face the possibility that putting all or even most of the 
emphasis
 > on OApub would be premature, and that OAarch, apart from being the surer
 > road to immediate OA, might even be the surer road to eventual OApub!
 >
 > I think the dual OA algorithm
 >
 >     (1) publish your articles in an open-access journal wherever 
available
 >     (<5%)
 > and
 >     (2) self-archive the rest of your articles (>95%)
 >
 > captures the true realities and possibilities and probabilities, and in
 > their true proportions.
 >
 > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt
 >
 > But OApub leaves OAarch entirely out of its unilateral strategies and
 > desiderata -- or, worse, OApub portrays OAarch merely as a way to offload
 > the archiving and access burdens of OApub journals!
 >
 > I have been on the OA circuit a long time. I have a good sense by now of
 > the maddeningly slow and slow-witted pace of progress toward OA, and
 > how Zeno's Paralysis, mutating in a Protean way with every apparent
 > step forward, keeps conspiring to side-track our progress toward this
 > long overdue and long accessible goal.
 > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#8
 >
 > It is accordingly important that all open-eyed open-access advocates
 > now try to do everything we can to make sure that the 95% solution is
 > *understood* to be the 95% solution that it is, and is given 95% of the
 > open-access-seeking community's attention and efforts. The money is not
 > with us -- I don't have the PLoS's $9 million, nor even the BOAI's 3 --
 > but fortunately OAarch does not depend on money but only on 
understanding,
 > and the action flowing naturally from that understanding.
 >


[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 02:57:29 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Open assistant professorship at HANKEN from bo-christer.bjork AT hanken.fi

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Richard Durbin wrote:

> Although I applaud open archiving, from my point of view open access
> publishing is what is needed in the long run.

Unfortunately, I was unable to discern from your message *what* it is
that open-access publishing is needed for that open-access
self-archiving does not provide identically. (I assume that by "open
archiving" you mean open-access self-archiving, for otherwise "open
archives" just means archives with OAI-compliant metadata.)

The capabilities you think one provides that the other does not seem to
be connected with data-archiving, and your argument seems to be based
on (1) an analogy with the data-sharing in genomics as well as the
increasing amount of (2) data that are now included in some journal
articles.

Both cases have been discussed in this Forum already. See the discussion
thread:

    "Free Access vs. Open Access"
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html

To take the second case first: If data are included in the journal article
(2), then they are included in the open-access version of the article,
whether that version is made open access through open-access publishing
or through open-access self-archiving. Either way, whatever is in the
published article is freely accessible online. Data that are *not*
included in the published article (1) can and should be self-archived
too -- http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm -- but
this has nothing to do with the problem of open access to journal
articles!

> This is because the key property is not that everyone can get at a copy
> of a publication, but rather that people can use information in it
> computationally, producing extracts, syntheses, new indexes etc.  This
> is now possible.

Whether the digital text (including data) of an article is made openly
accessible by being published in an open-access journal or by being
published in a toll-access journal but being self-archived in an
open-access archive is irrelevant: Either way, the data reported in it
are available to be used computationally. Don't confuse the use and
re-use of data with the use of the *text* to generate other text (other
than by quoting it): Any other re-use of text is plagiarism (i.e., if it
is not quotation). Text, unlike data and software code, cannot be
reprocessed and made one's own: It can only be cited and quoted.
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2967.html

> I come from the community that led open release of data in genomics: the
> C.elegans genome mapping then sequencing project, followed by the human
> genome project.  The real value of the way that genome data such as the
> human genome sequence is available is that people can use it and build
> on it.  

Any genome data that is included in an article that is openly accessible
online can be used and built upon in exactly the same way, regardless of
whether it has been made openly accessible by being published in an
open-access journal or by being published in a toll-access journal and
self-archived.

> Building on publications used to be open, because the only way
> to do it was to read and then write something else (e.g. a review or a
> new paper with a new idea).  And a subscription cost was reasonable
> historically because most of the costs were in printing and
> distribution.  Now, at least in biological science, a lot of valuable
> data are published in papers in tables and figures, and people are
> developing computational tools that can use this information, and even
> the free text.  (See www.textpresso.org for an example of the latter.)
> So there are ways to use the information in papers for new science, but
> to do this we need much more open access to the literature.

How much more-open access do you need than open access (i.e., free,
full-text, online access)? And how does open-access publishing provide
it and open-access self-archiving not?

(We agree about the obsolescence of toll-costs, but that's neither here
nor there. Both open-access publishing and open-access self-archiving
free the online text from those toll-barriers.)

> Research funding is provided to generate outputs that others can build
> on.  Funders, and the rest of the system, want publication to be as
> unconstrained as possible, and the only reasons that we haven't yet
> taken advantage of electronic publishing to make things less constrained
> are historical inertia and the commercial interests of some publishers
> (see last week's Wellcome Trust report).

Unfortunately I cannot discern the point you are making here: We agree
that toll-barriers are bad and obsolescent, that research is written to
be used and built upon ("research impact"), that online publication 
is
preferable to paper, and that open-access online publication is
preferable to toll-access online publication. But what has this to do
with open-access via open-access publication vs. open access via
open-access self-archiving? The Wellcome Trust report, as far as I can
discern, supports both:
 
         Specifically, the Trust:
         (1) welcomes the establishment of free-access, high-quality
             scientific journals available via the Internet;
         (2) will encourage and support the formation of such journals
             *and/or free-access repositories for research papers*...
         (3) will meet the cost of [open-access] publication charges
         (4) encourages researchers to *maximize the opportunities to
             make their results available for free*...
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3030.html

> So, for me, Open Archiving is just a tactical move to keep the
> publishers moving to the larger goal of changing scientific publishing
> to a better and more natural model, which is possible now with the
> network and electronic publishing.
> Richard Durbin, Head of Informatics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute

Open-Access Self-Archiving is a tactical move for one goal, and one goal
only: open access to the peer-reviewed research literature (as soon
as possible). It *might* also help move journal publishing eventually
from the toll-access to the open-access model
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1
but that is not only speculation, but unnecessary speculation, on which
nothing else depends, and for which open access certainly need not and
should not wait.

What is needed, now, is open access, and it is attainable, now,
through self-archiving. Whether it does or does not also eventually
lead to a transition from toll-access to open-access publishing is not
the main issue, but if you wish to see self-archiving as a strategy
for moving journal publishing to a better and more natural model, you
are certainly free to see it that way: Either way, what is needed is
universal self-archiving, now. The optimal dual open-access strategy is:

    (1) For all articles for which a suitable open-access journal
        (about 500 exist so far), publish them in an open-access journal.

and

    (2) For all other articles, publish them in a suitable toll-access
        journals (there are about 23,500) but also self-archive them in
        your institution's open-access archive.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.htm

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 



[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:40:30 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Michael Eisen wrote:

> > Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >
> > Whether the digital text (including data) of an article is made 
openly
> > accessible by being published in an open-access journal or by being
> > published in a toll-access journal but being self-archived in an
> > open-access archive is irrelevant: Either way, the data reported in 
it
> > are available to be used computationally. Don't confuse the use and
> > re-use of data with the use of the *text* to generate other text 
(other
> > than by quoting it): Any other re-use of text is plagiarism (i.e., if 
it
> > is not quotation). Text, unlike data and software code, cannot be
> > reprocessed and made one's own: It can only be cited and quoted.
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2967.html
> 
> What do you mean "don't confuse the re-use of data with the use of 
text"?
> These are exactly the same thing. There are two goals for open access
> publishing. The first is free access for all to the scientific 
publications.
> The second is the ability to treat text as data - something that you 
deride.

Let me explain as clearly as I can: If I put a data-table into my text:
"1 3 7 2 4 6 5" and publish the text as a (copyrighted) article of 
mine on
paper (only), the reader/user is free to copy down my data (by pencil,
or typing it on a computer) and then do some computations to re-order
it and publish the results in an article (on paper) to the effect that
"the (cited) author generated the wrong data-ordering. It should have
been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7" or even that "the extension of the (cited) 
authors
finding is: 8 10 14 9 11 13 12" etc.

Now if you can do that on paper, you can do it even more easily if the
full-text, including the data, is freely accessible online -- either as
the result of having been published in an open-access journal or as the
result of having been published in a toll-access journal and also
self-archived by the author in an open-access archive. It saves the user
the trouble of having to re-pencil or retype it.

The only thing the user may not do (if copyright protection is retained,
as it *should* be, rather than putting the text into the public domain,
as recommended by the Sabo Bill) is to republish my own words of text
(rather than the data I report), on-paper or online. That protection means
(1) you may not print or distribute paper copies of my text other than
for your own use, (2) you may not include my text in your own text as
your own published text (though you may quote it in your own published
text if you attribute authorship), and (3) you may not include my text
in your own text, even with authorship attribution, if you alter or
corrupt my text.

But -- and this is absolutely critical if we are to understand free
online full-text access in the PostGutenberg Age correctly: My making
my own full-text freely accessible online means *anyone* worldwide who has
access to the web may (i) retrieve my full-text online, (ii) read it
on-screen, (iii) download it, (iv) save it, (v) print it off, (vi) do
online or offline computations on it. In addition, the software agents
(e.g. google) that I choose to empower to do so (and, by default, this
could be all of them) can, like individuals, (vii) harvest my text,
invert it, index it, perhaps perform further computations on it.

This is not even a legal fact, it is a practical, technological and
inevitable fact about free, full-text web access and the nature of
computers and the internet (and of files that are not fire-walled by a
password or encryption or agent-blocker). If a law allows us to walk
inside a building, a separate law is not needed to say we may breathe the
air in the building; nor is a law that says we may walk but not breathe
enforceable -- except in a sci-fi scenario that is not worth our wasting
our time even contemplating, either in the case of walk-but-don't-breathe
or read-but-don't-download-or-compute.

If I choose to make my full-text open access, all of the above goes
with the territory. If I instead choose to put my text behind a
password-protected firewall, or to encrypt it to block certain uses,
then I am not making it open-access. 

The crucial thing to understand, though, is that I can make my text
open-access in two ways: either by publishing it in an open-access
journal (which will then presumably go on to make my full-text openly
accessible on my behalf) or by publishing it in a toll-access journal,
and self-archiving it in my own institutional open-access archive,
thereby making it open-access on my own behalf.

There is no need to put the text in the public domain, in either case
(open-access publishing or open-access self-archiving). That would be a
completely unnecessary sacrifice and risk to both my authorship and the
integrity of my text (as discussed extensively on the thread 
"Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html ).

And the copyright issue is much simpler and more straightforward than
most parties have been suggested (usually because they are preoccupied
with their own interests or because they have misconceptualized what is
at issue):

(1) There no need for open-access papers to be put in the
public domain: copyright can and should still be asserted for
open-access papers. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1612.html

(2) There is no need for open-access authors to refuse to transfer
copyright to their publishers if the publishers wish it (as long the
publisher is (Romeo) "blue" or "green" (i.e., recognizes 
the authors
right to make his own full-text open-access by self-archiving it)
as 55% of publishers already are, and many others will agree if asked::
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
).

(3) Even with non-blue/green publishers, the full-texts can be made
open-access using the preprint + corrigenda strategy. The result is
a bit less convenient, but otherwise functionally identical to (2):
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1

(4) Open-access authors can itemize their rights and preferences, as per
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/ or they can
simply assert standard copyright, self-archive their full-text in
their institutional open-access eprint archive, and allow the natural
constraints of the online medium to ensure that all users have the
capabilities ((i) - (vii) above) that were the reason they made them
open-access in the first place!

See the Southampton ECS open-access eprint archive for a
sample of all that can be done with self-archived full-texts:
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ Or see the other open-access archives
in http://software.eprints.org/#ep2

(You'll see that what's missing there is not functionality but only
articles! And one of the reasons I am at pains to lay to rest the notion
that free full-text online access is somehow not access enough
is to increase the number of articles, by reassuring those who are
hesitating to self-archive because they have gotten the idea that free
full-text online access is somehow not functionality enough!)

> If you think that the only possible use of text is to cite and quote than
> you have completely missed the potential of open access publishing. If all
> we accomplish is to let people read any paper they want, we will have
> accomplished a lot, but we will still have failed. The true potential of
> open access publishing is the ways in which we can go beyond simply being
> able to read papers for free online.

As I have tried to show above, the rest of the ways already come with
the territory, if one makes one's full-text freely accessible online.

> Searching the full-text of articles is an obvious example of a use of text
> that goes beyond citing and quoting. And searching is only a trivial 
example
> of a use of the content of scientific publications. Scientific 
publications
> are not just words - thet contain knowledge, and the type of use Richard 
is
> referring to deals not with the data described in a paper, but with the
> knowledge contained in the paper itself- ideas, methods, results and
> insights.

Please see my response to Richard and the prior threads cited therein,
concerning data-archiving and data-sharing. 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3048.html
See above for my response about harvesting/searching/indexing and
computations on data and text. 

A good example of a dedicated harvester for open-access research alone
is OAIster http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/ but I expect you
have already heard of google, which harvests all full-texts made freely
accessible on the web. http://paracite.eprints.org/

> The open archives movement is focussed on making it possible for people to
> read individual works for free. Open access publishing is focussed on this
> task, as well as the more important goal of ensuring that the contents -
> data as well as text - of all scientific publication are available not 
only
> for people to access, but for them to use. So long as self-archiving
> focusses only on access, it will not realize the full potential of
> electronic publishing to transform how we use the scientific literature.

Mike, I am afraid the access/use distinction (for full-texts made freely
accessible on the web, as in OAIster) is as completely lost on me
as it was when you first stressed it in Budapest. Unless there is
something I have missed or misunderstood, it seems to me, for the
reasons cited above, to be a non-issue.

I agree, though, that the functionality that is being enhanced by the
OAI's splendid work on interoperability should be extended to
data-tagging and -sharing as the amount of data both in published
articles and in direct data-archives increases:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm

This, however, has less to do with the nature of open-access than with
the resourcefulness with which we aplly our computational powers.

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 



[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 14:05:50 +0100 (BST)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk

These are comments on two October 9 articles on open access in Nature by
Declan Butler (plus an accompanying letter by John Ewing).

> Who Will Pay for Open Access/DECLAN BUTLER
> http://www.nature.com/cgi-bin/doifinder.pl?URL=/doifinder/10.1038/425554a
> 
> Will scientists, their host institutions and those who fund their research
> embrace the author-pays model? And if they do, is $1,500 per article 
enough
> to cover the costs of producing a journal of the highest quality? 

The quality of a journal depends on the quality of its submissions
and the rigor and selectivity of its peer review. Authors give
their papers for free; referees referee for free. The only cost is
administering the peer-review service. The highest-end estimate for
the cost of implementing peer review alone has been $500 per paper:
http://agenda.cern.ch/askArchive.php?a01193/a01193s5t11/transparencies

> For most researchers in the physical sciences PLoS's campaign is a side
> issue. They routinely make their papers freely available before formal
> publication using online preprint archives such as arXiv org.

Arxiv.org is a central archive, mainly for physics, but also for
mathematics, computer science, and (as noted in Butler's other article,
below), now for quantitative biology too. But neither Arxiv nor any of
the growing number of institutional open-access eprint archives is or has
ever been for unrefereed preprints alone, or even primarily. Open-access
archives are for both the pre-refereeing preprint and the post-refereeing
postprint. The preprint comes, logically and chronologically, before
the postprint in the embryology of an article, but it is the refereed
postprint that is the most important to self-archive and thereby make
open-access. It is incorrect and misleading to equate open-access
self-archiving with preprint-archiving.

I think the reason opponents of self-archiving keep misrepresenting
self-archiving as being only or mainly preprint self-archiving may be
that they wish to sound a note of warning bout self-archiving that
would simply make no sense if it were frankly admitted that both the
preprint and postprint stage of research are being self-archived. Here
is an example:

> But for biologists who are not generally comfortable with prepublication
> the answers to the questions thrown up by the launch of PLoS Biology
> may define the future of scientific communication.

Here is that usual wishful discouraging note again!

The future of scientific communication will indeed be permanently altered
by open access, but open access is not just open-access publication (and
open-access self-archiving is not just preprint-archiving)!

> PLoS's ... letter attracted more than 30,000 signatures although
> few signatories seem to have followed through on their pledge to stop
> submitting to and reviewing for journals that have not acceded to PLoS's
> call for open access. These journals remain in the majority hence PLoS's
> decision to launch its own publishing enterprise.

It is certainly true that the many researchers who signed the toll-access
journal boycott petition had no place to go when their petition failed to
convert the 23,500 toll-access journals into open-access journals (of
which there are still only around 500). That's why PLoS created its two
new open-access journals. 

But waiting passively for the one-by-one conversion or replacement of
the 23,500 toll-access journals is not the only road to open access,
nor the fastest: There is also self-archiving, and each researcher can
do that on his own, right now, with no need to wait for anything. In
fact, 55% of journals sampled already officially support author
self-archiving, and many others will agree if asked. Becoming a Romeo
"green" (self-archiving-friendly) publisher is a way that publishers
can provide their support to open access and its benefits to research and
researches without necessarily having to take the radical and risky step
of converting to open-access publishing at this time:

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1

> Some journals such as the American Physiological Society's Physiological
> Genomics are allowing authors to pay for open online access for individual
> papers while retaining a subscription model for the journal as a whole.

Authors who can afford it are welcome to pay toll-access journals to do
their self-archiving for them, but for those who cannot afford that,
self-archiving for themselves, in their own institutional eprint
archives, is surely the preferable option.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0000.html

> "I feel that PLoS's estimate is low by four to sixfold says cell 
biologist"
> Ira Mellman of Yale University editor of the The Journal of Cell Biology.

The true cost of the essentials has been a matter of much debate and
speculation since at least 1998:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0002.html
and today's open-access journals have had to make a pre-emptive guess,
ranging from $500 per paper to $1500 per paper. 

[My own guess is that it is impossible to determine the cost
of the essentials a priori, because we don't yet know what the
essentials are -- and we will not know until/unless competition
from the self-archived vanilla postprints causes cancellation
pressure on toll-access journals, forcing them to cut costs and
downsize to the essentials, which (I again guess) may turn out to be
just peer-review administration, with text-production offloaded onto
authors' XML word-processors and access and storage offloaded onto the
interoperable network of OAI-compliant institutional eprint archives
in which the postprints are self-archived:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0303.html .]

> in the longer term PLoS and other open access groups must persuade the
> organizations and institutions that fund and host biology research to
> pay their fees. Grants from the US National Institutes of Health already
> allow for the charging of publication fees. Other bodies are moving in
> the same direction.

Yes, funding to cover open-access publication costs is beneficial
and welcome, but funding 500 open-access journals does not solve the
problem of providing open access for the contents of the remaining
23,500 toll-access journals. That depends on formulating systematic
institutional and national self-archiving policies for all research
output, which should be explicitly coupled with these new open-access
publication-funding policies, to maximize the overall return on the
investment.

http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy_files/blank_notes.htm
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#research-funders-do

> Peter Suber... notes that many institutions will be reluctant to cover
> dissemination fees while still paying subscriptions to traditional
> journals...

Yes, this double-payment burden is a problem. But if coupled with a
concerted institutional and national self-archiving policy, it is a
rational investment into the future of universal open access.

> PLoS Biology will have to overcome the hurdle that faces any new journal
> irrespective of its business model, convincing scientists -- particularly
> young researchers who need to publish in high profile journals to further
> their careers -- that it is worth taking the risk on a new and unknown
> quantity.

All new journal startups have to first establish their track-records,
but in the online age, and if the editorial boards are strong and the
refereeing quality standards and selectivity are high, they can do this
quite quickly. The Journal of Higher Energy Physics started only a few
years ago (as an open-access journal, incidentally!) and very quickly
attained one of the highest impact factors in its field.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3053.html

The fact that JHEP later converted from open-access to toll-access is
interesting, but not as negative as it sounds: Its contents all continue to
be openly accessible online because all of its authors self-archive.
JHEP came before the recent momentum for open-access journals. If the
new funding sources for covering open-access publishing costs grow and
extend from biology to physics, JHEP may again be able to revert to the
open-access publishing cost-recovery model. The important thing is that
all of its contents remain open access online, thanks to
self-archiving.

> Most publishers remain sceptical about the viability of PLoS's eventual
> goal of converting the entire scientific literature to the open access
> model. But many now accept that the author pays approach may have its
> place. In August the Association of Learned and Professional Society
> Publishers declared itself wholly in favour of maximizing access to
> research literature.

All this support and enthusiasm for funding open access publishing is
desirable and welcome, but I hope it is clear from the above example
that self-archiving must be systematically promoted and practised
at least as vigorously, if the benefits of open access are to extend
to the contents of the remaining 23,500 journals, and not just to the
existing 500 open-access journals, or the ones we succeed in creating
or converting across the coming decade.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3053.html

> the various proposals for achieving [open access] raise complex economic
> logistical and sociological questions which differ from field to field
> as well as between different sizes and types of publishers. Much more
> information needs to be gathered through experimentation and analysis.

There are two essential facts that do not vary from field to field: 

    (1) There is no field that does not benefit from maximizing its
    research impact by maximizing its research access through open access.

    (2) All fields can have immediate open-access through self-archiving,
    now regardless of the current availability of suitable open-access
    journals.

> Biologists join physics preprint club/ DECLAN BUTLER
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v425/n6958/full/425548b_fs.html
> 
> [Arxiv has] created q-bio, an archive for quantitative biology. But
> papers on ArXiv are not peer-reviewed, and there is concern this could
> create problems if medical papers are accessed by physicians or patients.

It is incorrect that self-archived papers -- in arXiv or elsewhere,
including in their authors' institutional open-access archives -- are not
peer-reviewed. The first version that authors may decide to self-archive
might be the unrefereed "preprint," prior to journal submission, but 
the
peer-reviewed "postprint" also gets self-archived once the refereeing 
is
complete and the final version is available (except when the differences
are trivial). http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#What-self-archive

Researchers have decades of experience distinguishing unrefereed papers
(tagged clearly as "preprints" online) from refereed papers (which 
are
tagged clearly by the journal name). The minority of biomedical papers
that have implications for human health could even be assigned a "health
warning" tag, if the biomedical community judges it important enough.
All this ground was already covered in the public discussion of the
original 1999 Ebiomed proposal out of which PubMed Central and
eventually PLoS arose:
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0627.htm

> 'Open access' will not be open to everyone: John Ewing Amer Math Soc
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v425/n6958/full/425559a_fs.html
> 
> Public Library of Science (PLoS)... will support their [open access]
> journals by charging authors, not subscribers... [about] US$1,500
> per paper. [But] not all researchers are funded by research grants...
> PLoS [says] authors... unable to pay won't have to. But this assumes
> that few authors are unable to pay -- a false premise in many disciplines.
> [H]ow will universities and departments decide which faculty and which
> areas of research are supported? What happens to faculty in small colleges
> with limited resources?

First, there are only 500 open-access journals so far (and only 2 PLoS
journals) out of a total of 24,000 refereed journals.
http://www.doaj.org/ PLoS has a $9 million subsidy. If they say
impecunious authors won't have to pay, you can believe them.

Second, for the the authors in the 500 open-access journals whose
institutions can't afford the publication charge, and for the authors in
the 23,500 toll-access journals that do not yet have suitable open-access
counterparts, there is always the option of open-access self-archiving:
Making their toll-access articles openly accessible by depositing them
in their institution's open-access eprint archives.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/

> When a scientist doesn't have a subscription, he or she can nonetheless
> get information about the article (the abstract and perhaps a list of
> references); requesting a copy of the article can be as easy as sending
> an e-mail.

But each individual request-for-a-copy costs money (if it is through
publisher's pay-per-view or interlibrary loan) and takes time; it takes
even more time (and is altogether uncertain) if the request is sent to
the author. Those toll-barriers and turnaround times have been made
obsolete by today's online media and instant click-through capabilities!
And it is so that research and researchers can benefit from these
powerful new capabilities of the online medium -- unconstrained by
needless toll-barriers for research that its own authors want all
users to have, toll-free, so as to maximize its research impact -- that
the open access movement has evolved!

Requesting a paper reprint was the old, restricted, papyrocentric
way researchers shared their findings. The new, far more powerful and
beneficial PostGutenberg way is to make an unlimited supply of reprints
available to all users, as online, openly-accessible eprints. No need to
take the time or trouble to ask each time you see or want a paper. And
no access-toll-fees.

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

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 



[BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:13:10 +0000 (GMT)


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

Dear Katie Mantell:

As you requested, I have transmitted widely your announcement about
SciDevNet's coverage of open access:
http://www.scidev.net/ms/open_access/

As you also ask for my comments, Here they are:

(1) The SciDevNet's coverage is very helpful and welcome, but at the
moment it is *extremely* lop-sided, covering only one of the two roads
to open access -- open-access journal publication -- but not the other
road: open-access self-archiving of toll-access journal publications:
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html

(2) You do cite the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) but you do
not note that the BOAI consists of *two* open-access strategies, of
which the second (BOAI-2) is open-access journal publication but the
first (BOAI-1) is open-access self-archiving:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml

(3) This is an important omission, because in actual numbers, open-access
self-archiving is generating far more open access articles per year than
open-access journal-publishing, and open-access via this road is also
able to grow much sooner and faster. In fact, in all likelihood, the
"green" road of open-access self-archiving is itself also the surest
way to reach the "golden" road of open-access journal-publishing!

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0026.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0021.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0028.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0022.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0030.gif

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

(4) This is why it is so important not to represent "open-access" as 
merely being synonymous with "open-access-publishing"!

(5) In your key reports and documents, you have mostly BOAI-2 reports and
documents. May I suggest adding the following BOAI-1 reports and
documents:
 
    (i) The BOAI-1 (self-archiving) FAQ:
    http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/

    (ii) The original self-archiving proposal (Okerson & ODonnell 1995)
    http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html

    (iii) The University self-archiving policy model:
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html

    (iv) The Research-Funder open-access policy model:
    http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/

    (v) The Berlin Open Access Declaration:
    http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html

    (vi) SPARC Institutional Repository Checklist & Resource Guide
    http://www.arl.org/sparc/IR/IR_Guide.html

(6) Among "Open Access Initiatives" could I suggest adding

    (i) The SHERPA Project
    http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/

    (ii) The DARE Project
    http://www.surf.nl/en/themas/print/index2.php?oid=7

   (iii) The Australian initiative
   http://alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2002/10/eprints.html

   (iv) French initiatives:
    http://www.tours.inra.fr/tours/doc/comsci.htm

   (v) The cross-institutional archive, OAIster
    http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/

(7) To "Open Access Literature" I suggest adding:

    Harnad, S. (2001) The self-archiving initiative
    http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html

    Pinfield et al (2002) "Setting up an institutional e-print 
archive"
    http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue31/eprint-archives/intro.html

And to links I would add:
    
    Core metalist of open access eprint archives
    http://opcit.eprints.org/archive-core-metalist.html

as well as the following resources:

    Very large harvested cache of open-access arcticles in Computer
    Science: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/cs

    GNU Open-Source Self-Archiving Software:
    http://www.eprints.org/

    Citation-Impact-Measuring Search Engine for Open-Access Achives:
    http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/search

    Citation-Seeking Engine (looks for open-access full-texts)
    http://paracite.eprints.org/

    American Scientist Forum (discussion of open access since 1998)
    http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html

    Open Archives Initiative
    http://www.openarchives.org/

    Powerpoints for promoting open access:
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin.ppt
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin.htm
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.ppt
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.htm

These recommendations are all intended so as to make the SciDevNet
site's contribution to open-access complete, rather than being, as it is
now, merely a review of the open-access journal-publishing portion of
the overall movements and initiatives toward open access.

Sincerely,

Stevan Harnad

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Katie Mantell wrote:

> Dear Stevan Harnad
> 
> Many thanks for your email in response to the editorial on communicating
> science in an electronic era.
> 
> We have posted it on our letters to the editor page
> (http://www.scidev.net/EditorLetters/) and have also taken the opportunity
> to post it on a special section of the website that we are launching today
> on "Open Access and Scientific Publishing" under 'Feedback and 
Debate'.
> 
> In this section (http://www.scidev.net/open_access) we have drawn together
> resources on access to scientific information in the developing world. 
> 
> It includes:
> ·  Up-to-date news, features and opinion articles on the issues
> surrounding open access and scientific publishing
> ·  Descriptions of (and links to) current open access initiatives 
> ·  Access to free scientific literature
> ·  Links to key reports  
> ·  Comprehensive events section with the latest meeting proceedings and
> future events. 
> ·  An opportunity for you to comment and give your views 
> 
> We hope that this guide will be a useful and important resource for all
> those interested in open access to scientific information, and will 
provoke
> further critical thinking and discussion on the key issues. 
> 
> I would therefore be grateful if you could pass this message on to
> colleagues and friends who might be interested 
(www.scidev.net/open_access).
> Also, do let me know if you have any comments on the section.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Katie Mantell
> 
> ============================================
> Katie Mantell
> News Editor
> 
> SciDev.Net
> 11 Rathbone Place
> London
> W1T 1HR
> United Kingdom
> 
> Tel: +44 (0)20 7291 3695
> Fax: +44 (0)20 7291 3697
> ============================================
> SciDev.Net - found at www.scidev.net - is a free-access website providing
> news, views and information on science, technology and the developing 
world.


NOTE: 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
    http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
    Posted discussion to: september98-forum AT amsci-forum.amsci.org 

Dual Open-Access Strategy:
    BOAI-2: Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal
            whenever one exists.
    BOAI-1: Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access
            journal and also self-archive it.
    http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin.htm



[BOAI] Open assistant professorship at HANKEN

From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bo-Christer_Bj=F6rk?= <bo-christer.bjork AT hanken.fi>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:16:44 +0300


Threading: [BOAI] Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access from harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk
      • This Message

Dear all,

Usually this list is not used for job ads but I hope you can excuse this 
message.  A 5-year position as Assistant professor in Information 
Systems is  open at the Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki, Finland.
Deadline for applications is 2.5. For more information check at
http://www.hanken.fi/public/en/ledigabefattningar#document6 (English)

One of the strengths of our research group is research concerning Open 
Access, and recently graduated Ph.Ds with background either in 
information systems or information science (library sciences) and with 
an interest to do research concerning scholarly communication could apply

Bo-Christer Bjrk
Professor
Bo-Christer.Bjork AT hanken.fi



        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f


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

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .