Thursday, January 29. 2009
Peter Suber wrote in Open Access News:
Notifying authors when they are citedIt is clear who should notify whom -- once the global research community's (Green OA ) task is done. Our task is first to get all refereed research journal articles self-archived in their authors' Institutional Repositories (IRs) immediately upon acceptance for publication. (To accomplish that we need universal Green OA self-archiving mandates to be adopted by all institutions and funders, worldwide.)
Once all current and future articles are being immediately deposited in their authors' IRs, the rest is easy:
The articles are all in OAI-compliant IRs. The IR software treats the articles in the reference list of each of its own deposited articles as metadata, to be linked to the cited article, where it too is deposited in the distributed network of IRs. A citation harvesting service operating over this interlinked network of IRs can then provide (among many, many other scientometric services) a notification service, emailing each author of a deposited article whenever a new deposit cites it. (No proporietary firewalls, no toll- or access-barriers: IR-to-IR, i.e., peer-to-peer.)
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Wednesday, January 28. 2009
In this JISC report, Houghton et al. estimate that the UK could save around £80 million per year by shifting from toll access to open access publishing or £115 million per year by moving from toll access to open access self-archiving. The greater accessibility to research could result in an additional £172 million worth of benefits per year from the government and higher education sector research alone. [See also 1 and 2.]
Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the costs and benefitsAuthors: John Houghton, Bruce Rasmussen and Peter Sheehan, Victoria University and Charles Oppenheim, Anne Morris, Claire Creaser, Helen Greenwood, Mark Summers and Adrian Gourlay, Loughborough UniversityPress Release (JISC-ANNOUNCE)
Tuesday, January 27. 2009
Re-posting of announcement by Isidro Aguillo of Webometrics University Rankings to the American Scientist Open Access Forum.
The following is re-posted from Bloomsbury Academic.
"A few years ago I could see an increasing number of "free" and "open" movements beginning to develop. And while they all had different aims, they appeared to represent a larger and more generalised development than their movement-specific objectives might suggest.The Basement Interviews by Richard PoynderCommon Knowledge, Common Good:
"Indeed, I felt that they looked set to exemplify the old adage that the sum of some phenomena is always greater than the constituent parts. But if that was right, I wondered, what was the sum in this case?
"I was also intrigued as to why they were emerging now. For while it was apparent that these movements — including Open Source and Free software, Creative Commons, Free Culture, Open Access, Open Content, Public Knowledge, Open Data, Open Source Politics, Open Source Biology, and Open Source Journalism etc. — all owed a great debt to the development of the Internet, it was not clear to me that the network was the only driver.
"The genesis of the Free Software Movement, for instance, could be said to lie in the specific culture of the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT in the 1970s, rather than the Internet. And at that time software programs were still generally written as part of large-scale centralised projects, and distributed on floppy disks or tapes. So I suspected that the Internet was not a sufficient explanation on its own.
"Additionally, I was curious about the individuals who had founded these movements: What had motivated them? Why did they feel so passionate about the cause that they had adopted? What did they think the various movements had in common (if anything) with one another? What was the big picture?
"All in all, it seemed to me to be good material for a book; a book that I envisaged would consist primarily of a series of Q&A interviews with the key architects and advocates of what I had come to call the Free Knowledge movement — people like John Perry Barlow, John Gilmore, Michael Hart, Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond, Linus Torvalds, Jay Rosen, Lawrence Lessig, Joe Trippi, Harold Varmus, Vitek Tracz, Stevan Harnad, Paul Ginsparg, Cory Doctorow, Yochai Benkler, Richard Jefferson, Michel Bauwens etc.
"I eventually started publishing the interviews on my blog, as The Basement Interviews. And much to my pleasure I began to receive positive feedback almost immediately. I also felt the big picture was beginning to emerge, although the project remains ongoing for now.
"Many of those who have contacted me have urged me to seek out a publisher. A publisher, they insist, would be able to market the interviews in ways that — whatever the advantages of self-publishing on the Web — I was not able to do. Besides, they added, it would be great to have access to a print copy of the collected interviews.
"Others were less sure. As one reader who emailed me put it, "Now the interviews are in the blogosphere they will surely find their own audience."
"What do you think? I'd be interested to hear. I'd also be interested for suggestions as to who is missing from my list of interviewees. Who else, that is, do you think of as a key architect or advocate for the Free Knowledge movement that has not been mentioned here? I can be contacted at email@example.com
"Further details about The Basement Interviews can be accessed here
1. Michael Hart, the founder of Project Gutenberg
UK's 21st Green OA Mandate, Planet's 62nd
(Via Peter Suber's OA News)
Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (ESPRC) (UK funder-mandate)
Institution's/Department's OA Eprint Archives
Institution's/Department's OA Self-Archiving Policy
The independent study commissioned by Research Councils UK was completed in late 2008. The findings from the study are now being taken forward by the Cross-Council Research Outputs Group and will be used to inform future policy on open access. EPSRC Council agreed at its December meeting to mandate open access publication, but that academics should be able to choose whether they use the green option (ie, self-archiving in an on-line repository) or gold option (ie, pay-to-publish in an open access journal). Further details will be published in spring 2009.
Thursday, January 22. 2009
The fundamental importance of capturing cited-reference metadata in Institutional Repository deposits
On 22-Jan-09, at 5:18 AM, Francis Jayakanth wrote on the eprints-tech list:
"Till recently, we used to include references for all the uploads that are happening into our repository. While copying and pasting metadata content from the PDFs, we don't directly paste the copied content onto the submission screen. Instead, we first copy the content onto an editor like notepad or wordpad and then copy the content from an editor on to the submission screen. This is specially true for the references.The items in an article's reference list are among the most important of metadata, second only to the equivalent information about the article itself. Indeed they are the canonical metadata: authors, year, title, journal. If each Institutional Repository (IR) has those canonical metadata for every one of its deposited articles as well as for every article cited by every one of its deposited articles, that creates the glue for distributed reference interlinking and metric analysis of the entire distributed OA corpus webwide, as well as a means of triangulating institutional affiliations and even name disambiguation.
Yes, there are some technical problems to be solved in order to capture all references, such as they are, filtering out noise, but those technical problems are well worth solving (and sharing the solution) for the great benefits they will bestow.
The same is true for handling the numerous (but finite) variant formats that references may take: Yes, there are many, including different permutations in the order of the key components, abbreviations, incomplete components etc., but those too are finite, can be solved once and for all to a very good approximation, and the solution can be shared and pooled across the distributed IRs and their softwares. And again, it is eminently worthwhile to make the relatively small effort to do this, because the dividends are so vast.
I hope the IR community in general -- and the EPrints community in particular -- will make the relatively small, distributed, collaborative effort it takes to ensure that this all-important OA glue unites all the IRs in one of their most fundamental functions.
(Roman Chyla has replied to eprints-tech with one potential solution: "The technical solution has been there for quite some time, look at citeseer where all the references are extracted automatically (the code of the citeseer, the old version, was available upon request - I dont know if that is the case now, but it was in the past). That would be the right way to go, imo. I think to remember one citeseer-based library for economics existed, so not only the computer-science texts with predictable reference styles are possible to process. With humanities it is yet another story.")Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Tuesday, January 20. 2009
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Sally Morris [SM] (Morris Associates)
SM:This makes sense. The self-archived versions are supplements, for those who don't have subscription access.
SM:This is an odd category: Wouldn't one have to know what percentage of those articles -- to which these respondents did not have subscription access -- in fact had self-archived versions at all? (The global baseline for spontaneous self-archiving is around 15%)
The way it is stated above, it sounds as if the respondents knew there was a self-archived version, but chose not to use it. I would strongly doubt that...
SM:That 16% sounds awfully close to the baseline 15% where it is possible, because the self-archived supplement exists. In that case, the right description would be that 100%, not 16%, did so. (But I rather suspect the questions were yet again posed in such an ambiguous way that it is impossible to sort any of this out.)
SM:To get responses on self-archived content, you have to very carefully explain to your respondents what is and is not meant by self-archived content: Free online versions, not those you or your institution have to pay subscription tolls to access.
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Saturday, January 17. 2009
It is with great pleasure that we note your recent appointments in the new
The resolution, through science, of urgent global problems is a priority for the safety and economic progress of all nations, yet cannot be achieved by any country in isolation. We write to you, therefore, to urge you to ensure that access to publicly funded research is free to all potential users, particularly to those in low economy regions where the costs of commercial journals are prohibitive, yet where the problems are most severely felt. Without an international perspective on disease control, climate change and other global problems, there will always be limited success, since scientific knowledge in the developing world is a crucial element to the implementation of appropriate and sustainable solutions.
The international movement towards the twin approaches to achieving free and open access to research findings2 – open access institutional repositories (current total 1239)3 holding deposits of published, peer-reviewed articles, plus open access peer-reviewed journals (current total 3812)4 – is already well established. These collectively provide open access to several million refereed published research articles. Additionally, there are now 31 open access mandates from universities and research institutions requiring the deposit of their own research article output, whether institutionally or externally funded, in their own institutional repositories, as well as 30 open access mandates from major research funding organisations5 requiring the deposit of articles arising from their financial support.
As measurement tools become established, the usage of such material is now seen to be spectacularly high, indicating the very real need for access to research previously locked in high-priced journals, accessible only to those able to afford them.
It remains of great importance, now that the groundwork is laid, that these developments are supported and extended to all research in every discipline. Already the NIH Open Access mandate exists, together with other mandates in the
We write in the hope that you will be able to use your good offices to ensure the adoption of Open Access policies by all federal agencies, thus encouraging further equivalent policy adoptions throughout the world. Environmental protection, the cure and treatment of malaria, HIV/AIDS, the containment of emerging new infectious diseases, the conservation of biodiversity and energy are all urgent issues particularly affecting the low economy regions. They cannot be solved without international scientific cooperation, depending as it must on free and open access to research publications.
We wish you much success in your new appointment and urge that the wider needs of the developing world will be high on your list of priorities. Open Access to research findings by mandated deposit in Institutional Repositories is a very low cost and achievable aim with disproportionately large benefits.
With our good wishes for 2009 and your future work,
Barbara Kirsop, Secretary/Trustee,
On behalf of Trustees of the Electronic Publishing Trust for Development
Friday, January 16. 2009
The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) has circulated a fairly anodyne briefing to its member publishers. Although it contains a few familiar items of misinformation that need to be corrected (yet again), there is nothing alarming or subversive in it, along the lines of the PRISM/pitbull misadventure of 2007.
Below are some quote/comments along with the (gentle) corrections of the persistent bits of misinformation: My responses are unavoidably -- almost ritually -- repetitive, because the errors and misinformation themselves are so repetitive.
STM BRIEFING DOCUMENT (FOR PUBLISHING EXECUTIVES) ON INSTITUTIONAL REPOSITORIES AND MANDATED DEPOSIT POLICIES
Issues that drive... [publisher] policies [on IR deposits] center around assessments of their impact on the integrity of the scientific record and their potential to undermine the funding that drives scholarly communication today. These assessments are especially crucial when public posting of final and authoritative versions of scholarly articles on IRs are concerned.This is a fair statement: The issues for the research community are research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress. The issue for the publisher community is their financial bottom line.
Publishers become concerned when IRs involve themselves in publishing and distribution activities currently being done efficiently and effectively by the scholarly publishing community. When this happens, a parallel publishing system is created that lacks the quality controls and value-added processes publishers already employ.(1) IRs do not publish: peer-reviewed journal publishers publish. IRs provide access to their own authors' (peer-reviewed, published) output -- for all those would-be users webwide who cannot afford access to the publisher's toll-based proprietary version -- so as to maximize the access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress of their research output.
(2) The version of the published article that the authors deposit in their IRs is the final, revised, peer-reviewed draft (the "postprint"), accepted for publication, but not the publisher's proprietary PDF. Hence deposit does have the quality controls provided (for free) by the peer-reviewers. (If the copy-editing should happen to detect any substantive errors -- which is exceedingly rare! -- these too can be corrected in the deposited postprint.)
If IRs become primary publishing outlets, many are concerned that key elements of today’s scholarly communication system such as quality controls, preservation standards, and the discoverability of research, will suffer.IRs are not substitutes for publishing but supplements to it, providing access to research for access-denied would-be users, for the sake of maximizing research progress. The deposited postprints have undergone the essential quality-control for researchers: peer review.
The discoverability of postprints in IRs (via search engines like google, google scholar, citeseerx, scirus and scopus) is excellent. No problems, and no complaints from all the would-be users webwide who would otherwise lack access to them.
(Preservation is a red herring: Preservation of what? As supplements, rather than substitutes, authors' self-archived postprints are not the versions with the primary preservation burden (although IR deposits are of course being preserved). The primary preservation burden is on the publisher's proprietary version, the official version of record, as it always has been.)
Publishers rely on copyright transfers or publishing licenses from authors for the rights they need to ensure that the funding sources for the scholarly communications process... are not undermined by the availability of alternative versions. In return, authors’ manuscripts are improved, enriched, promoted, and branded as part of a web-based peer-reviewed journal publishing system developed and maintained by publishers.(a) In their IRs, authors deposit supplementary versions of their own peer-reviewed publications in order to maximize their uptake, usage, applications, and impact, by maximizing access to them.
(b) So far, all evidence is that this self-archiving has not undermined the traditional toll-based (subscription/license) funding model for peer-reviewed journal publishing: rather, they co-exist peacefully.
(c) But if and when IR deposit should ever make subscriptions unsustainable for covering the remaining essential costs of peer-reviewed journal publishing, there is an obvious alternative: conversion to the Gold OA publishing funding model.
(d) What is definitely not an acceptable alternative for the research community, however, is to refrain from maximixing research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress (by mandating IR deposit) merely in order to insure publishers' current funding model against any possibility that universal IR deposit might eventually lead to a change in funding model.
(e) Unlike trade authors, researchers transfer to the publishers of their peer-reviewed research all the rights to sell the published text, without asking for any royalties or fees in return. They have always, however, exercised the right to distribute free copies of their own articles to all would-be users who requested them, for research purposes. In the web era, OA IRs have become the natural way for researchers to continue that practice, in order to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress.
Publishers are not alone in expressing concern about the potential misuse and dangers of IRs. Most recently, Dorothea Salo of the University of Wisconsin library has raised issues about the expense and utility of IRs in an article entitled “Innkeeper at the Roach Motel”(Publishers might do better to pay serious attention to the substantive rationale and evidence concerning IR deposits and IR deposit mandates, rather than to the opining of roach motel keepers.)
As an executive in the publishing industry, you may be asked to comment on news and developments in the academic community about these IR policies, which are sometimes also less accurately described as “authors’ rights” or “open access” policies.IR deposit mandates are accurately described as institutional open access policy. (But IR deposit mandates are certainly not "authors' rights" policies.)
The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the situation as it currently exists; to enable you to review and monitor your own policies and approaches; and to respond to members of the media if desired.... Key points for internal review:This mixes up issues: The only relevant issue here for IRs and IR deposit policies is whether or not the publisher has formally endorsed providing open access to the peer-reviewed postprint immediately upon acceptance for publication. (This is called a "Green" publisher policy on OA self-archiving. It has nothing to do with author-pays/Gold OA publishing models. And authors paying for the "right" to deposit would be absurd and out of the question.)
-- In our journal publishing agreement(s), do we offer rights to authors for IR postings? If not, under what terms and conditions might we?If the publisher has formally endorsed providing open access to the peer-reviewed postprint immediately upon acceptance for publication, the publisher is Green. If there is no endorsement, or OA is embargoed, the publisher is Gray.
-- What distinctions do we draw between pre-print servers, voluntary IRs, and mandated IRs in terms of copyright policies and business model(s)?The only potential distinction is between authors' own institutional IRs and institution-external 3rd-party central repositories. Although OA is OA (and means free online accessibility webwide, irrespective of the locus of deposit), some publishers only endorse deposit in the author's own IR, in order not to endorse 3rd-party free-riding by rival publishers: This limitation is innocuous, and no problem for OA. (In fact, there are many reasons why it is preferable for both kinds of Deposit mandates -- those from funders as well as from institutions -- to converge on institutional IR deposit, from which the metadata can then be harvested centrally.)
What would be arbitrary (and absurd, and unenforceable) would be to attempt to endorse only voluntary IR deposit and not mandatory IR deposit by authors!
-- Intramural Policies: We allow posting of final or near-final versions of articles on an Intranet site with no public access permitted;Let there be no ambiguity about this: Such a policy would be Gray, not Green, on OA IR self-archiving.
-- Extramural Policies: We allow posting of early versions of articles [e.g. pre-prints, revised author manuscripts prior to copy-editing and formatting'] on an Internet site with public access permitted and journal-specific embargo periods;Without an embargo, this policy would be fully Green, and neither IRs nor OA ask for anything more. With an embargo, it would be Gray.
-- Linking Policies: We allow posting of final versions of articles on a publisher web site with links from institutional sitesIf the posting on the publisher's website is done immediately upon acceptance for publication, and access to it is immediately open to all users webwide, that would be fully Green too. (For such cases, IRs could, for internal record-keeping purposes, mandate the deposit of the author's postprint in the IR, but in Closed Access, with the OA link going to the publisher's freely accessible version for the duration of the publisher's embargo on making the IR version OA too: no problem.)
-- Sponsorship Policies: We allow posting of final versions of articles on an institutional site and/or our own site and/or other repository site with direct financial support of agency, institution, author or sponsorPaying to deposit in researchers' own IRs would be absurd, and roundly rejected as such by the research community.
Key points to consider in possible interactions with the media:True (though thanks also to the advent of the Web). But this literature is not yet accessible to all those would-be users webwide whose institutions cannot afford to subscribe to the journal in which it was published -- and no institution can afford to subscribe to all or most peer-reviewed journals. It is in order to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress by making all research accessible to all of its would-be users webwide (not just those whose institutions can afford to subscribe) that the OA movement was launched. And that is why Green OA self-archiving, generated by funder and institutional IR deposit mandates, is growing, to the great benefit of research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, R&D industries, and the tax-paying public that funds the researchers' research and institutions.
(The publishing industry has to remind itself that the reason peer-reviewed research is conducted, peer-reviewed and published is not in order to fund the publishing industry, but in order to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress.)
-- Today’s system of web-based peer-reviewed journals is a vital component of the scholarly communication process and is used by funding agencies and the institutions alike to make critically important personal and professional decisionsCorrect. And both the research itself, and the peer review, are provided by the research community, free of charge, to the publishing community, in exchange for the neutral 3rd-party management of the peer review, and the certification of the outcome with the journal's name and track-record. The publishing community is compensated for the value it has added by receiving the exclusive right to sell the resultant joint product (and no need to pay authors royalties from the sales of their texts).
But that does not mean that researchers cannot and will not continue to give away their own peer-reviewed research findings also to those would-be users who cannot afford to buy the resultant joint product. Nor does it mean that researchers' institutions and funders cannot and will not mandate that they do so, in order to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress for the benefit of research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, R&D industries, and the tax-paying public that funds the researchers' research and institutions.
-- Posting on an institutional repository is not the same as publishing in a journal— journals have established editorial policies and perspectives, peer review systems, editing, tagging, and reference-linking servicesCorrect. And individual authors depositing the final, peer-reviewed drafts of their published articles in their IRs is not publication but supplementary access provision, for those would-be users who cannot afford paid access to the publisher's proprietary version.
-- If not carefully conceived and managed, IRs can become nothing more than alternative, free-access parallel (but inferior) publishing and distribution systems which risk undermining the incentives and ability of publishers to invest in managing the peer-review of research and to provide and maintain the well-organized infrastructure necessary to publish, disseminate and archive journal articlesThis is merely the repetition of the same point made earlier:
No, IR deposits of peer-reviewed postprints of published articles are not publishing, nor substitutes for publishing, they are author supplements, provided for those would-be users who cannot afford paid access to the publisher's proprietary version:
(a) In their IRs, authors deposit supplementary versions of their own peer-reviewed publications in order to maximize their uptake, usage, applications, impact, by maximizing access to them.
(b) So far, all evidence is that this self-archiving has not undermined the traditional toll-based (subscription/license) funding model for peer-reviewed journal publishing: rather, they co-exist peacefully.
(c) If and when IR deposit should ever make subscriptions unsustainable for covering the remaining essential costs of peer-reviewed journal publishing, there is an obvious alternative: conversion to the Gold OA publishing funding model.
(d) What is definitely not an acceptable alternative for the research community, however, is to refrain from maximixing research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress (by mandating IR deposit) in order to insure publishers' current funding model against the possibility that universal IR deposit might eventually lead to a change in funding model.
(e) Unlike trade authors, researchers transfer to the publishers of their peer-reviewed research all the rights to sell the published text, without asking for any royalties or fees in return. They have always, however, exercised the right to distribute free copies of their own articles to all would-be users who requested them. In the web era, OA IRs have become the natural way for researchers to continue that practice, in order to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress.
-- IRs require investment and management. They should be undertaken only if they have a clear mission and purpose other than merely offering an alternative parallel publishing and distribution systemIRs are undertaken by universities and research institutions -- i.e., the research community. It is not at all clear why the publishing community is providing this advice to the research community on its undertaking...
-- Researchers should be fully briefed about possible adverse and long-term effects on scholarly communication before granting broad and ill-defined rights to IRsResearchers can and should be fully briefed about the already demonstrated benefits to research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, R&D industries, and the tax-paying public that funds the researchers' research and the researcher's institutions -- the benefits generated by maximizing research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress through Green OA self-archiving and IR deposit mandates.
Researchers need this full briefing on research benefits, because it is based on actual facts and experience.
But is the publishing community suggesting that -- in addition to these empirical and practical facts -- researchers should also be briefed on publishers' speculations about how Green OA self-archiving might conceivably induce an eventual change in publishers' funding model?
If and when IR deposit should ever make subscriptions unsustainable for covering the remaining essential costs of peer-reviewed journal publishing, there is an obvious alternative: conversion to the Gold OA publishing funding model.
What is definitely not an acceptable alternative for the research community, however, is to refrain from maximixing research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress (by mandating IR deposit) in order to protect publishers' current funding model from the possibility that universal IR deposit might eventually lead to a change in funding model.
-- Faculty authors should retain the freedom to choose how and where to publishBy all means. And they should continue to exercise their freedom to supplement access to their published research by depositing their postprints in their IRs for all would-be users webwide who cannot afford access to the publisher's proprietary version.
-- Universities proposing to obtain rights from their faculty should also work with publishers to avoid adverse effects on the system of web-based peer-reviewed journals which currently underpins today’s unprecedented rate of scientific advancementIt would be excellent if all authors reserved OA self-archiving rights in their copyright agreements with their publishers. Then all authors could immediately deposit all their peer-reviewed research in their IRs, and immediately make them OA without any further ado. But for at least 63% of journals, formally reserving that right is already unnecessary, as those journals are already Green, so those articles can already be made immediately OA today by self-archiving them in the author's IR.
For the remaining 37%, their authors can likewise already deposit the postprints in their IRs immediately upon acceptance without the need of either copyright reservation or any formal endorsement or permission from the publisher: if they wish, they can set access to the deposit as "Closed Access" -- meaning only the author can access it. Then the authors can provide "Almost OA" to those deposits with the help of their IR's "email eprint request" button: Individual would-be users who reach a Closed Access deposit link (led there by the deposit's OA metadata) need merely press the Button and insert their email address in order to trigger an immediate automatic email to the author to request a single copy for personal research purposes; the author receives the eprint request, which contains a URL on which he can click to trigger an immediate automatic email to the would-be user containing a single copy of the requested postprint. This is not OA, but it is Almost-OA.
OA is indisputably better for research and researchers than Almost-OA. But 63% OA + 37% Almost-OA will tide over the worldwide research community's immediate usage needs for the time being, until the inevitable transition to 100% OA that will follow from the worldwide adoption of Immediate IR Deposit mandates by institutions and funders.
This is the information on which the research community needs to be clearly briefed. The publishing community's conjectures about funding models are important, and of undoubted interest to the publishing community itself, but they should in no way constrain the research community in maximizing access to its own refereed research output in the Web era by mandating IR deposit universally.
What is definitely not an acceptable alternative for the research community is to refrain from maximixing research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress (by mandating IR deposit) in order to insure publishers' current funding model against the possibility that universal IR deposit might eventually lead to a change in funding model.
The publishing industry has to remind itself that the reason peer-reviewed research is conducted, peer-reviewed and published is not in order to fund the publishing industry, but in order to maximize research access, uptake, usage, applications, impact and progress.
[It is much harder, however, for institutions to successfully achieve consensus on adopting an IR deposit mandate at all if the mandate in question is a copyright-reservation mandate rather than an IR deposit mandate. And because it is even harder to ensure compliance with a copyright-reservation mandate (because of authors' worries that the negotiations with their publishers to reserve immediate-OA self-archiving rights might not succeed and might instead put at risk their right to "choose how and where to publish"), the one prominent institutional copyright reservation mandate (Harvard's) contains an author opt-out clause that makes the mandate into a non-mandate. The simple solution is to add an Immediate-Deposit requirement, without opt-out. Even simpler still, adopt an Immediate-Deposit mandate as the default mandate model suitable for all, worldwide, and strengthen the mandate only if and when there is successful consensus and compliance in favor of a stronger mandate.]
American Scientist Open Access Forum
Wednesday, January 14. 2009
Science Dissemination using Open Access: A compendium of selected literature on Open Access
Editors: E. Canessa and M. Zennaro (ICTP-SDU, Italy)
Publisher: The Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics
Slightly dated (since July 2008), but still informative and recommended.
(Page 1 of 2, totaling 18 entries) » next page
Syndicate This Blog
Materials You Are Invited To Use To Promote OA Self-Archiving:
The American Scientist Open Access Forum has been chronicling and often directing the course of progress in providing Open Access to Universities' Peer-Reviewed Research Articles since its inception in the US in 1998 by the American Scientist, published by the Sigma Xi Society.
The Forum is largely for policy-makers at universities, research institutions and research funding agencies worldwide who are interested in institutional Open Acess Provision policy. (It is not a general discussion group for serials, pricing or publishing issues: it is specifically focussed on institutional Open Acess policy.)
You can sign on to the Forum here.
Last entry: 2017-03-27 13:12
1125 entries written
238 comments have been made