All - ....and are in pdf which is an awful format for any re-purposing. Also, well-organised institutional repositories are connected to a CRIS (Current Research Information System) which (assuming it uses CERIF - Common Research Information Format - an EU recommendation to member states) provides contextual (meta)data on such things as persons, organisational units (groups, departments), projects, funding, facilities and equipment used, patents, products (including research datasets and software), publications, events - i.e. the research 'space' associated with the publication. More information at www.eurocris.org/cerif Of course all of this information is needed attached to the publication for most re-purposing and also for research evaluation. Keith
---------------------------------------------------------- Prof Keith G Jeffery E: keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk Director Information Technology & International Strategy Science and Technology Facilities Council Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Harwell Science and Innovation Campus Didcot, OXON OX11 0QX UK T: +44 1235 44 6103 F:+44 1235 44 5147 President ERCIM & STFC Director: http://www.ercim.org/ W3C Office at STFC-RAL http://www.w3.org/ President euroCRIS http://www.eurocris.org/ VLDB Trustee Emeritus: http://www.vldb.org/ EDBT Board Member http://www.edbt.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the intended recipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it The STFC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with the policy available from <http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm>. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- Please note that from 20081006 all my email will be sent out from stfc in the format above. However, incoming email using other email addresses for me will work for the forseeable future. Nonetheless, you are advised to change any address book entries or typed 'to' email addresses to the new address provided above. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ____________________________________________________________________________ From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Morag Greig Sent: 02 June 2009 16:45 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit? Because the copies on Elsevier's website are NOT freely accessible. Morag ******************************************** Morag Greig Advocacy Manager (Enlighten) Direct line: +44(0)141 330 6797 Fax: +44(0)141 330 4952 E-mail: m.gr...@lib.gla.ac.uk Library University of Glasgow Hillhead Street Glasgow G12 8QE www.lib.gla.ac.uk The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 -----Original Message----- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf Of Sally Morris Sent: 02 June 2009 15:36 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit? Let me be heretical here In this interconnected environment, why does it matter where the freely accessible version is? Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 02 June 2009 14:32 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit? On 2-Jun-09, at 8:05 AM, Peter Suber wrote: [Forwarding from Fred Friend via the JISC-Repositories list. --Peter Suber.] To all repository managers: Rumours are spreading that Elsevier staff are approaching UK Vice-Chancellors persuading them to point to PDF copies of articles on Elsevier's web-site rather than have the articles deposited in institutional repositories. It appears that the argument being used is that this will be a cheaper option than maintaining full-text within repositories. If these reports are true, my guess is that Elsevier are using these arguments to undermine deposit mandates. Here is my prediction: (1) Yes, Elsevier and other publishers would be happier if researchers did not deposit their final drafts in their institutional repositories, and if their institutions and funders did not mandate that they do so. Hence it is not at all surprising that they may be trying to persuade UK VCs to link to PDFs at Elsevier's website instead of having their researchers deposit their own final drafts in their own institutional repositories. (2) But UK VCs presumably still have some autonomy and judgement of their own. So whereas they will understand why it might be in publishers' interest if universities' research output were held at publishers' websites rather than in the university's own repository, they will also see quite clearly why this would not be in the interest of their universities, or their researchers, or research assessment, or research itself. (3) So the attempt at persuasion will prove unpersuasive. So please let us not again stir up groundless and distracting anxieties about this. Let publishers try to persuade whomever they wish of whatever they wish. The interested parties will make their own decisions, according to their own interests. What UK VCs should be (and are) doing is persuading their own researchers to provide Open Access to their own research output, in their own repositories, by adopting university Open Access self-archiving mandates, as 83 institutions and funders worldwide have already done. UK has the world's highest concentration of these mandates, and two more are about to be announced (stay tuned). Elsevier (and the majority of other publishers), despite their efforts at VC persuasion, and despite the familiar doomsday scenarios to the contrary, remain on the side of the angels insofar as OA self-archiving is concerned, endorsing authors depositing their final drafts in their institutional repositories. Let us concentrate on accelerating OA mandate adoption and not worry about how publishers might be trying to decelerate it: The outcome is optimal (for research, researchers, their institutions, and the tax-paying public that funds them) -- and inevitable. If Vice-Chancellors are persuaded to adopt this policy, it would only give repository access to an unsatisfactory version (PDFs will not enable re-use for research purposes) and access on Elsevier's terms. If this is Elsevier's strategy it would seem to negate their "green" status. Previous correspondence on this list has indicated a harder line on repository deposit by Wiley-Blackwell, and if Elsevier are also hardening their policy, mandates for repository deposit could lose much of their potential effectiveness in increasing access to research content. There is no hardening of policies, the PDF issue is a red herring, and green continues to be green. It would be wise for repository managers to brief their senior university management on this issue. The threat to repository deposit also adds to the need for authors to be briefed on the use of a licence to publish retaining certain rights rather than ceding all control over their work to the publisher. There is no threat to repository deposit; a green light to deposit a postprint is sufficient for green OA and green OA mandates, irrespective of whether the postprint is the author's final draft or the publisher's PDF. Any publishers reading this message should understand that dialogue on the issues above will be welcome, in particular clarification of any change in publisher policies. What is needed is not (still more!) dialogue with publishers but self-archiving of postprints by the researchers -- and postprint self-archiving mandates by researchers' institutions and funders. Repository managers do far more for OA if they focus on helping their institution to adopt self-archiving policies rather than if they focus on how publisher may be trying to maximise their interests by delaying or distracting from them. Stevan Harnad Fred Friend (not writing on behalf of any organisation or institution) Scanned by iCritical.