Re: Citation is Medium-Independent
We follow the citation style indicated by SH (roughly) for unpublished papers for most of our eprints records. It's simple, basic and serves its function of getting people to the eprints metadata page. Author (year) Title. URL As in: Sponsler, Ed (2001) PURR - The Persistent URL Resource Resolver. http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechLIB:2001.003 The URL actually takes you to a resolver service that redirects you to the actual destination. The whole purpose of this redirection step is to provide people with a URL suitable for citation--a URL that does not need to change even if we move this record to a different server or software, or whatever. Incidentily, the above reference is a how-to setup such a resolver, especially for eprints.org users. -- Ed Sponsler Caltech Library System Pasadena, CA USA > -Original Message- > From: owner-eprints-undergro...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > [mailto:owner-eprints-undergro...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf > Of Christopher Gutteridge > Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:12 AM > To: EPrints Underground List > Cc: AmSci Forum > Subject: Re: [EP-underground] Re: Citation is Medium-Independent > > > The intension in the design was that the 'metadata' page > would be used as the URL reference. That way people can see > information on other versions, formats etc. > > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 12:54, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Chris Korycinski wrote: > > > > > is there a standard way (or any way) of referencing > material/papers > > > which are on an eprints server? > > > > Yes. For published papers: the standard journal (or book-chapter or > > conference) bibliographic citation, followed by the archive URL. > > > > For unpublished papers: author, title, date, followed by > the archive > > URL. (It is not a good idea to include publication venue > information > > until/unless the preprint has been accepted. One can add "under > > refereeing" or some such, without naming the venue.) > > > > > I would presume that in most cases this reference would be to the > > > full > > > text, but if the deposit is for 'admin staff only' then > you might want to > > > quote the metadata page, which is public, followed by the > paper, which > > > then becomes a 'personal communication' as you have got > it directly > > > from the author & not the eprints server. > > > > > > Chris Korycinski > > > St Andrews eprints administrator, Main Library > > > > The eprint archive is in general not a publication venue > but an access > > venue. Cite documents in it exactly as you would if you > read them on > > paper (e.g., unpublished personal communication, if it is > unpublished) > > and add the archive URL (whether it contains the full-text > or merely > > the metadata). > > > > It is a mistake to treat self-archiving as publication (in the > > "publish-or-perish" sense). It is not. > > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#self-archiving-vs-publication > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.4 > > > > "Citation is Medium-Independent" > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0362.html > > > > "Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ" > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0500.html > > > > "Self-Archiving Refereed Research vs. Self-Publishing > Unrefereed Research" > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1468.html > > > > "Garfield: 'Acknowledged Self-Archiving is Not Prior > Publication'" > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2239.html > > > > "Chronicle of Higher Education Article on 'Self-Publication'" > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2375.html > > > > Stevan Harnad > -- > Christopher Gutteridge >
Re: Request for journal/article/field statistics from Ulrichs and ISI
The following is an exchange between Andrew Odlyzko (U. Minnesota) and Hal Varian (UC Berkeley) on the question of the number of journals and annual articles. There is also a note from Donald W. King (U. Pittsburgh) at the end. 7 numbered contributions in all. --- 1. List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:42:39 -0800 From: Hal Varian We cite 37,609 journals (using Ulrich's 2001 data), with an average of 208 pages per issue. See: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/print.htm#genres --- 2. List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 04:54:27 -0600 (CST) From: Andrew Odlyzko Something seems wrong here. In your entry for scholarly periodicals (which cites Ulrich's 2001 figure of 37,609 journals), what is the assumed size of a scanned image (600 dpi)? (Looking just in this table, for books you seem to be using 130 KB/page, for newspapers you say it is 500 KB/page, for newsletters probably 1600/12 or 133 KB/page.) Also, how many issues of a scholarly periodical do you assume there are in a year, on average? (I.e., does "208 page average" refer to an issue or to annual input?) If we take your "total TB per year" figure of 6.0 TB and divide by the 27 MN/issue figure in the table, we get about 222,000 issues. There are some pretty extensive studies by Don King which show that the average scholarly paper is something like 10 pages in length (with variations from field to field, math being about twice as long, for example). If we use that, and combine it with your estimates of 222,000 annual issues and 208 pages per issue, we get something like 4.5 million articles per year. --- 3. List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:00:44 -0600 (CST) From: Andrew Odlyzko Stevan, Sure, there is nothing confidential about it. However, it might be better to wait and give Hal a chance to respond, and then send out both messages at once, to minimize the mental load on the readers. Best regards, Andrew P.S. My impression of the size of the literature (based on the rough estimates I had made years ago) is about the same as yours, and appears to differ from Hal's. --- 4. List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:48:02 -0800 From: Hal Varian Andrew Odlyzko wrote: > Something seems wrong here. In your entry for scholarly periodicals > (which cites Ulrich's 2001 figure of 37,609 journals), what is the > assumed size of a scanned image (600 dpi)? (Looking just in this > table, for books you seem to be using 130 KB/page, for newspapers > you say it is 500 KB/page, for newsletters probably 1600/12 or > 133 KB/page.) Take a look at: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info/print.html#orig which lays out different scanning/compression assumptions. As I recall, for books and journals we used the JSTOR numbers. They scan at 600 dpi, but then compress using a technology that stores a dictionary of font shapes, along with pointers to those shapes. This is quite efficient for material that is primarily text. For newspapers, we used the Newspaper Preservation Project standards http://www.neh.gov/projects/usnp.html, which use different technology. Also, newspapers pages are much bigger than book/journal pages. For journals, we used the Tenopir and King numbers. > Also, how many issues of a scholarly periodical do you assume there > are in a year, on average? (I.e., does "208 page average" refer to > an issue or to annual input?) "1,700 pages per periodical per year" from King's data. > If we take your "total TB per year" figure of 6.0 TB and divide by > the 27 MN/issue figure in the table, we get about 222,000 issues. > > There are some pretty extensive studies by Don King which show > that the average scholarly paper is something like 10 pages in > length (with variations from field to field, math being about > twice as long, for example). If we use that, and combine it > with your estimates of 222,000 annual issues and 208 pages per > issue, we get something like 4.5 million articles per year. Sounds reasonable. --- 5. List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:05:21 -0600 (CST) From: Andrew Odlyzko Hal, Thank you very much for your response. There are still some seeming inconsistencies, but they may not be too big. If there are "1,700 pages per periodical per year", and "208 page average" per issue, we get 8.2 issues per journal per year, or a total of 308,000 issues per year. At the 27 MB/issue f
Eprints Handbook
-- Forwarded message -- List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:25:18 -0500 From: Peter Suber To: SPARC Open Access Forum Subject: Eprints Handbook [Forwarding from the Eprints team. --Peter.] This is to announce the Eprints User's Handbook http://software.eprints.org/handbook The Handbook was commissioned by the Open Society Institute http://www.soros.org/ and written by Dr. Les Carr, Southampton University http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lac/ The Handbook is designed for all Eprints Users: --the system administrators who set up and maintain the archives --the departments or libraries that manage them --the authors who self-archive their papers in them and --the readers who use their contents. Especially important are the strategic suggestions for implementing a systematic institutional self-archiving policy. Feedback is invited. The Handbook will be continuously expanded in response to queries and suggestions from users.
Re: EPRINTS = PREPRINTS (unrefereed) + POSTPRINTS (refereed)
I certainly intended the article to reflect the first of the interpretations that Stevan gives, i.e., that self-archiving is for papers at all stages of their evolution from pre-print to post-print. In the paper, I give a very brief (non-official) definition of self archiving as: '...the right of scholars to deposit their refereed journal articles in searchable and free electronic archives' I also talk about authors placing 'a peer-reviewed 'post-print' onto their local institutional repository ensuring that both versions were archived.' Admittedly, this last comment is in relation to the interaction with open access journals, but I agree that authors should be doing that now where they can, even if the paper is published in a subscription-based journal. I plead guilty as charged to my tardiness in making my papers available. The LIBER Quarterly paper (amongst others) is on the SPARC Europe website at: http://www.sparceurope.org/resources/index.html I refer to the free version as a 'pre-print' only because it is the version that I sent before it was printed - it should not vary from the final version as there were no changes (to my knowledge). I am also guilty of not formally archiving my papers in a repository, only of (eventually) placing them on the SPARC Europe website. If anybody has a good suggestion as to a suitable repository I will load them there. I am not sure if the LIBER Quarterly is a 'green' journal or not, but I side-stepped the issue by not assigning copyright. I never give away my copyright or sign a license that will stop me from putting up a version of the final text. I hope that this begins to return me to the ranks of a good citizen! David David C Prosser PhD Director SPARC Europe E-mail: david.pros...@bodley.ox.ac.uk Tel:+44 (0) 1865 284 451 Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888 http://www.sparceurope.org -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 24 January 2004 14:11 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: EPRINTS = PREPRINTS (unrefereed) + POSTPRINTS (refereed) Subject Thread begins (2000): http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0661.html Open Access News http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html (Friday January 23 2004) contains the following item: > OA will transform scholarly communication > > David C. Prosser, The Next Information Revolution - How Open Access > repositories and Journals will Transform Scholarly Communications, > Liber Quarterly, 13, 3/4 (2003) (accessible only to subscribers). > http://liber.library.uu.nl/cgi-bin/pw.cgi/articles/47/index.html > Abstract: "Complaints about spiralling serials costs, lack of > service from large commercial publishers, and the inability to > meet the information needs of researchers are not new. Over the > past few years, however, we have begun to see new models develop > that better serve the information needs academics as both authors > and readers. The internet is now being used in ways other than just > to provide electronic facsimiles of print journals accessed using > the traditional subscription models. Authors can now self-archive > their own work making it available to millions and new open access > journals extend this by providing a peer-review service to ensure > quality control." Posted by Peter Suber at 11:29 PM. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_01_18_fosblogarchive.html#a10749 1856636195137 I could not access the article as Liber is toll-access; but perhaps David Prosser could explain the last sentence in the above summary: > Authors can now self-archive their own work making it available to > millions and new open access journals extend this by providing a > peer-review service to ensure quality control Without the full text it is hard to know which of two possible senses is intended here. The first sense is spot-on and irreproachable: (1) Authors can now provide open access to the articles they publish in toll-access journals by self-archiving them AND (2) there are also new open-access peer-reviewed journals in which authors can publish their articles. If this is the intended sense of the passage, it is a very welcome statement of the UNIFIED OPEN-ACCESS PROVISION POLICY: (OAJ) Researchers publish their research in an open-access journal if a suitable one exists, otherwise (OAA) they publish it in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it in their own research institution's open-access research archive. But unfortunately there is another possible construal of the above passage, and it would be very helpful if David would clarify whether it was in fact this that he meant: Authors can now (1) self-archive unrefereed drafts of their work and then (2) extend this by submitting them to open-ac
Re: Citation is Medium-Independent
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Chris Korycinski wrote: > is there a standard way (or any way) of referencing material/papers > which are on an eprints server? Yes. For published papers: the standard journal (or book-chapter or conference) bibliographic citation, followed by the archive URL. For unpublished papers: author, title, date, followed by the archive URL. (It is not a good idea to include publication venue information until/unless the preprint has been accepted. One can add "under refereeing" or some such, without naming the venue.) > I would presume that in most cases this reference would be to the full > text, but if the deposit is for 'admin staff only' then you might want to > quote the metadata page, which is public, followed by the paper, which > then becomes a 'personal communication' as you have got it directly > from the author & not the eprints server. > > Chris Korycinski > St Andrews eprints administrator, Main Library The eprint archive is in general not a publication venue but an access venue. Cite documents in it exactly as you would if you read them on paper (e.g., unpublished personal communication, if it is unpublished) and add the archive URL (whether it contains the full-text or merely the metadata). It is a mistake to treat self-archiving as publication (in the "publish-or-perish" sense). It is not. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#self-archiving-vs-publication http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.4 "Citation is Medium-Independent" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0362.html "Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0500.html "Self-Archiving Refereed Research vs. Self-Publishing Unrefereed Research" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1468.html "Garfield: 'Acknowledged Self-Archiving is Not Prior Publication'" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2239.html "Chronicle of Higher Education Article on 'Self-Publication'" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2375.html Stevan Harnad
Re: Request for journal/article/field statistics from Ulrichs and ISI
Relevant prior AmSci Threads:
"Request for journal/article/field statistics from Ulrichs and ISI"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2972.html
"How many papers are there in the OAI-compliant archives?"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2327.html
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Hal Varian wrote:
> We cite 37,609 journals (using Ulrich's 2001 data), with an average of 208
> pages per issue. See
>
> http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/print.htm#genres
Dear Hal:
Many thanks for the figures!
I believe that Ulrich's figure for the peer-reviewed subset of
scholarly journals is still much lower than that (24,000 when I
last asked Ulrichs). Your 200-page average may be a better predictor
than Gene Garfield's 100 (but only if we can assume that the
10,000 non-peer-reviewed journals have not skewed your sample toward
the higher end).
I tend to use the 24K/2.5M figures only to provide a kind of context
or frame of reference for the open-access (OA) movement: to give us a
reasonable approximation to the total size of the task, and hence the
size of the progress we have made to date. (You are interested rather
in the size of the journal subset relative to the entire written and
digital corpora on the planet!). Of course 40K journals and 8M articles
would make the total TA (toll-access) target even bigger and the OA
proportion of it provided to date even smaller (and so it may be!).
But it hardly changes the two facts that (I believe) are the most
pertinent and informative for the OA movement today: (1) that the OA share
is still minuscule compared to the TA total (hence nothing to be either
euphoric or even complacent about) and (2) that the OA self-archived
portion of that minuscule OA share is at least 3 times as big as the
OA-journal portion, and growing faster, yet readily capable of providing
immediate OA for far, far more articles than it is as yet providing today.
In other words, the following figure would have to be revised to make the
remaining white region even bigger!
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0049.gif
Stevan Harnad
> Stevan Harnad [responding to a query] wrote:
> >
> > The estimate has since been updated to 24,000 peer-reviewed journals
> > publishing 2.5 million articles annually. But [one] should cite the
> > source I was using: Ulrich's for the figure of 24,000 peer-reviewed
> > journals http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/analysis/
> > and Gene Garfield's thumbnail estimated average of about 100
> > yearly articles per journal (this varies by field and may be low).
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2983.html
> >
> > I suggest you look at the growth rate of the number of peer-reviewed
> > journals across the years (Ulrichs) and check the ISI data to see
> > whether -- and if so, by how much -- the number of articles per year
> > per journal is growing.
> >
> > My own feeling is that the number of journals is probably near ceiling,
> > and that the number of articles may grow, but not that much, because
> > just about all articles eventually get published somewhere or other
> > already.
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
To join the Forum:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Hypermail Archive:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
