Re: Petitions, Boycotts, and Liberating the Refereed Literature Online
Again, the reasoning of the following well-informed comment takes one's breath away: It is so well-intentioned, so near -- and yet so far off the mark! And alas still so representative of current inchoate thinking on the subject: On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Mike Brown wrote: > I believe given the > current climate in the academic world that we will lose this round of > the [boycott] battle and capitulate to Elsevier. > Why? > Impact factor and RAEs here in the UK - few are willing to take up the > call and boycott these journals for fear of being penalized when it > comes to grant applications. > > Which looks better to a funding body: > > a) Publishing your [parasitology] work in an open access Journal > or > b) Publishing your work in Trends in Parasitology (TiP, Elsevier) > > Sadly it seems the current state of play is that publishing in TiP looks > better to a funding body > Is this not crazy!? > What we need is for more researchers to stop agreeing with us that open > access is a great idea and start publishing more high-impact papers in > Journals with open access models - this will make Elsevier sit up and > listen. What is really crazy is that we keep expressing our desire for open access through moratoriums and petitions like this instead of taking matters into our own hands by self-archiving our own output! All Elsevier journals are Romeo "blue/green," which means they support author self-archiving. Why propose to boycott them instead of just takingElsevier up on what can even be interpreted as a challenge: "Why should I [Elsevier] take you seriously about your alleged desire for open access if you can't even be bothered to provide it for yourselves when you are invited to?" > I realize that open access is not about making research available to the > developing nations (and yet... ;-)) - but it is my prime concern. Open access is about making resaech available to *all* would-be users, worldwide. What on earth is the point of asking researchers to withold their papers from their preferred journals rather than simply self-archiving them? That way they can have their RAE-cake and the world can eat it too! http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0008.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0009.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm Quo usque tandem patientia nostra abutere...? Stevan Harnad 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/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Posted discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@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.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
Re: Petitions, Boycotts, and Liberating the Refereed Literature Online
Michel thanks for posting. The revolution begins! But the outcome *will* ultimately rest with us and I believe given the current climate in the academic world that we will loose this round of the battle and capitulate to Elsevier. Why? Impact factor and RAEs here in the UK - few are willing to take up the call and boycott these journals for fear of being penalized when it comes to grant applications. Example: Say you research in the neglected parasitic diseases which are endemic in most of the world's poorest countries. Which looks better to a funding body: a) Publishing your work in an open access Journal - were the author's retain copyright and anyone can freely access and disseminate the work - which ultimately allows more rapid uptake of research into programme strategies or b) Publishing your work in Trends in Parasitology (TiP, Elsevier) which requires either a $165 per year personal subscription or $1,106 institutional subscription - PRINT ONLY [[bearing in mind the GDP per capita in Burkina Faso (the world's third poorest country) is $1,080 - how many people can afford access?]. Sadly it seems the current state of play is that publishing in TiP looks better to a funding body (or is this just a misconception by those applying for the grant?) because it is an established "traditional" journal and has an impact factor AND YET publishing in an open access journal would have the greatest impact on the health of some of the world's poorest. Is this not crazy!? What we need is for more researchers to stop agreeing with us that open access is a great idea and start publishing more high-impact papers in Journals with open access models - this will make Elsevier sit up and listen. I realize that open access is not about making research available to the developing nations (and yet... ;-)) - but it is my prime concern. Best wishes, Mike On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Michel Prévot wrote: >I am forwarding below an interesting resolution of the Academic Senate of the >University of California at Santa Cruz about their ties with Elsevier Journals. >Michel Prévot >Equipe de Paléomagnétisme, Laboratoire de Tectonophysique (UMR 5568 du CNRS) >Case 49, Université de Montpellier 2, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 05 - France >Email: michel.pre...@dstu.univ-montp2.fr >Tél: +33 467 14 36 54 - Fax: +33 467 14 36 03 >PS. My most recent preprints and postprints can be downloaded from >http://hal.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ (domain "earth sciences/geophysics") >For information about Open Access self-archiving and publishing see >http://www.isteem.univ-montp2.fr/ISTEEM/BIBLIOTHEQUE/indexpreprint.html > > > X-Sender: sen...@cats-po-1.ucsc.edu > X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1.1 > Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:05:04 -0800 > To: sen...@ucsc.edu > From: Academic Senate > Subject: Academic Senate Divisional Action Report > Cc: ASO:;, bjbro...@ucsc.edu, mmich...@ucsc.edu, larry.merk...@adm.ucsc.edu, > rcmil...@ucsc.edu, f...@ucsc.edu, rsudu...@ucsc.edu, > tom.v...@adm.ucsc.edu, > g...@ucsc.edu, jawil...@cats.ucsc.edu, isbis...@ucsc.edu, > mhco...@cats.ucsc.edu, betsy.mo...@adm.ucsc.edu > X-UCSC-CATS-MailScanner: Found to be clean > X-UCSC-CATS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: > > > TO: Academic Senate, Santa Cruz Division > FROM: Loisa Nygaard, Secretary > DATE: October 29, 2003 > Re: Report of Divisional Action of Academic Senate, October 24, 2003 > > After an addition to the penultimate paragraph was proposed from the floor > and accepted as a friendly amendment, the following resolution (AS/SCP/1405) > passed by voice vote without opposition. > > COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY > Resolution on Ties with Elsevier Journals > Facing a challenge to scholarly communication > The University of California system faces a challenge in relation to the > costs of online journal subscriptions. This challenge has two elements. > First, in the immediate future, there is a real possibility that negotiations > with one of the largest journal publishers, Elsevier (pronounced: > El-Suh-Veer), will not be successful and the University may lose access to > many of the 1,100 journal titles represented in Elsevier's Science Direct > Online (SDOL) database. Second, these difficult negotiations are symptomatic > of an underlying issue in scholarly communications: many faculty publish > their papers in journals whose publishers are selling access to these papers > at prices that are increasing much faster than inflation. > > The immediate crisis: Elsevier > Elsevier's Science Direct Online is one of the largest online journal > packages, and the University of California is one of Elsevier's largest > customers. For several years, the UC system has negotiated collectively to > gain access to Science Direct Online. There have been large savings from the > use of the system's collective buying power. UC Santa Cruz has been a > particular beneficiary from this arrangement, gaining access to a broader > range of journals t
Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives
I would like you to defend your claim that PLoS is "crunching" small publishers. Can you provide an example? - Original Message - From: "Dr. Vinod Scaria" To: Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:07 AM Subject: Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives > CALICUT MEDICAL JOURNAL > http://www.calicutmedicaljournal.org > ARCHIVES AT COGPRINTS > *** > > As we all know, Open Access Publishing is not gaining the momentum as > far as Journals published from Developing Countries are concerned [with > reference to western Journals]. Many reasons can be attributed like: > > 1. Monopolistic nature of Open Access Publishers like BioMedCentral > http://www. biomedcentral.com which pursues the "author pays" > and would drive away any author from Developing countries. Thus > obviously publishers from Developing countries would have second > thoughts before starting one at BMC. > > By meaning monopolistic, I refer to the almost complete control over open > access publishing- say about >75% of open Access Journals in Medicine.and > Mega organisations like PLOS are crunching the small publishers, as they > can easily override the smaller ones with the mega funding they have. > see: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7392/766#art > > 2. As I previously stated in my Editorial in Internet Health- > www. virtualmed. netfirms. com/internethealth/articleapril03. html , > the fear of losing revenue, which are the sole source of sustenance > of many Journals [though some make a meagre profit]. > > 3. Lack of sufficient expertise and > exposure to Open Access Publishing. >> > www. virtualmed. netfirms. com/internethealth/opinion0303. html > http://bmj. com/cgi/eletters/326/7382/182/b << > > But recent developments are worth mentioning - at least from India. Online > Journal of Health and Allied Sciences www. ojhas. org , India's first > Online BioMedical journal declared a couple of months back that they > would go Open. > > [I am in the Editorial board of OJHAS from Sept 2003]. OJHAS is > edited and published by a small group of scholars with no external > support. Everything from Web Design to Editing and Review are done by > voluntarily by the Editorial team. It also stands as a fine example of > the fact that Open Access Journals can indeed be successfully organised > and can indeed survive without an "author pays" model. > > Now coming to the Archival, Cogprints was our first choice for many reasons > > 1] It offers interoperability [as mentioned by Harnad] > 2] It offers unmatched popularity > 3] It has been there for years and we can be sure of the permanence > 4] It is of course FREE. > > And as Harnad suggested, there is no reason why Journals should not > be archived at Open Archives, be it self maintained repositories or > Centralised ones. In fact Open Archiving of electronic journals is > the need of the hour because our own studies [unpublished] show that > Electronic journals are just as ephemeral as websites. Scholarly > communication should never be lost at the cost of copyright > restrictions. Many of these journals have perhaps done more harm than > good by locking the access by copyright restrictions. > > Moreover, electronic journals are equally vulnerable to the vagaries > of the Internet. For example, JMIR www. jmir. org went suddenly offline > some time back [i think it was an year or so] making the whole content > inaccessible. [But it reappeared later and now is an Open Access Journal]. > > Thus in short, OPen Archiving of Journals as a whole is perhaps to be > discussed in a wider perspective than just making it OPEN. The major > emphasis should be the PERMANENCE of Open Archiving. I hope this post will > surely trigger a debate on the topic. > > Kind regards > > Dr. Vinod Scaria > Executive Editor: Calicut Medical Journal > Assoc Editor: Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences > Editor in Chief: Internet He@ lth > > WEB: www. drvinod. netfirms. com > MAIL: vinodscaria@yahoo. co. in > Mobile: +91 98474 65452 > > - Original Message - > From: Stevan Harnad > To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM@LISTSERVER. SIGMAXI. ORG > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:38 AM > Subject: Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives > > The two items that follow below are by Vinod Scario from Peter Suber's > Open Access News http://www. earlham. edu/~peters/fos/fosblog. html > > It provides an interesting and inspiring example of the power > and value of OAI-interoperability http://www. openarchives. org/ > and the interdependence of the two open-access strategies (open-access > self-archiving and open-access journal publishing) that this new online > open-access journal, produced in India, is being made accessible > by archiving it http://calicutmedicaljournal. org/archives. html > in a specially created sector of CogPrints in the UK, > http://cogprints. ecs. soton. ac. uk/view/subjec
Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Dr. Vinod Scaria wrote:
> As we all know, Open Access Publishing is not gaining the momentum as
> far as Journals published from Developing Countries are concerned [with
> reference to western Journals]. Many reasons can be attributed like:
>
> 1. Monopolistic nature of Open Access Publishers like BioMedCentral
> http://www. biomedcentral.com which pursues the "author pays" and
> would drive away any author from Developing countries. Thus obviously
> publishers from Developing countries would have second thoughts before
> starting one at BMC.
BMC is an open-access publisher publishing a number of open-access
journals among few other open-access publishers, but that does not make
them a monopoly.
Yes, author-pays is a deterrent, but that is not the only way to have
open-access today; there is also subsidy as well as self-archiving
(and if/when toll-cancellations generate institutional savings, there
is already enough cash in the system to pay the essential costs three
times over).
Just as it was counterproductive to villify toll-access publishers
(instead of either founding open-access journals or self-archiving),
so it is counterproductive to villify open-access publishers (instead
of either founding competing open-acecss journals or self-archiving).
> By meaning monopolistic, I refer to the almost complete control over open
> access publishing- say about >75% of open Access Journals in Medicine.and
> Mega organisations like PLOS are crunching the small publishers, as they
> can easily override the smaller ones with the mega funding they have.
> see: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7392/766#art
BMC and PLoS do not *control* open-access publishing, they are simply
the first big entrants into this still-small form of publishing. Their
start-up is well-funded, it is true, but is that a bad thing? The model
is still far from proved, and if it grew only on the basis of
volunteerism, it would grow even more slowly.
Crunching and overriding smaller open-access publishers and
journals? How? There are two main challenges for open-access publishing:
(i) The first challenge is making ends meet. BMC and PLoS are doing
this with subsidies plus submission charges; others are doing it with
subsidies plus volunteerism. It is not clear yet whether any of these
cost-recovery means will be stable and lead to long-term survival.
(ii) The second challenge is filling journal pages with high quality
content. Here, as with all new journals, the main factor is whether
the journal has a niche to fill (i.e., is there enough of a manuscript
flow of papers to be published in its area?) and whether the journal can
provide the requisite peer-review standards. This is as always a matter
of competition between journals for authors, but here whereas the BMC
and PLoS start-up subsidies may give them some advantage in promotion,
their submission charges would seem to offset or at least balance that
out. Fully subsidized or volunteer journals do not have the deterrent
effect of "author pays."
So is the "monopolistic" objection that BMC and PLoS have more start-up
support, giving them an advantage over journals without that support,
or is the objection that they have an "author pays" model, unaffordable
for some authors?
> 2. As I previously stated in my Editorial in Internet Health-
> www.virtualmed.netfirms.com/internethealth/articleapril03.html , the
> fear of losing revenue, which are the sole source of sustenance of many
> Journals [though some make a meagre profit].
The fear of losing revenue is the understandable reason that toll-access
journals don't convert to becoming open-access ("gold") journals
today. However, there is a less radical step they can take, for the
sake of open access, entailing far less immediate sacrifice or risk:
toll-access publishers can become "green" (official supporters of
self-archiving) rather than "gold."
> 3. Lack of sufficient expertise and exposure to Open Access Publishing.
> www.virtualmed.netfirms.com/internethealth/opinion0303.html
> http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7382/182/b
No one has much expertise or experience with open-access publishing,
and it can be stated that those open-access journals (including my own,
Psycoloquy http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ ) that rely on subsidies
and volunteerism rather than submission charges have not yet found a
stable cost-recovery model. Nor is the cost-recovery model of those
open-access journals that *do* rely on submission charges yet stable or
proven. It is far too early to say.
But it is not only, or primarily, with open-access publishing and its
economics that there is insufficient experience and knowledge: there is
insufficient experience and knowledge with open-access self-archiving
too, and that does not depend on subsidy or a cost-recovery model.
> But recent developments are worth mentioning - at least from India. Online
> Journal of Health and Allied Sciences www.ojhas.org , India's first
> Onli
Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives
CALICUT MEDICAL JOURNAL http://www.calicutmedicaljournal.org ARCHIVES AT COGPRINTS *** As we all know, Open Access Publishing is not gaining the momentum as far as Journals published from Developing Countries are concerned [with reference to western Journals]. Many reasons can be attributed like: 1. Monopolistic nature of Open Access Publishers like BioMedCentral http://www. biomedcentral.com which pursues the "author pays" and would drive away any author from Developing countries. Thus obviously publishers from Developing countries would have second thoughts before starting one at BMC. By meaning monopolistic, I refer to the almost complete control over open access publishing- say about >75% of open Access Journals in Medicine.and Mega organisations like PLOS are crunching the small publishers, as they can easily override the smaller ones with the mega funding they have. see: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7392/766#art 2. As I previously stated in my Editorial in Internet Health- www. virtualmed. netfirms. com/internethealth/articleapril03. html , the fear of losing revenue, which are the sole source of sustenance of many Journals [though some make a meagre profit]. 3. Lack of sufficient expertise and exposure to Open Access Publishing. >> www. virtualmed. netfirms. com/internethealth/opinion0303. html http://bmj. com/cgi/eletters/326/7382/182/b << But recent developments are worth mentioning - at least from India. Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences www. ojhas. org , India's first Online BioMedical journal declared a couple of months back that they would go Open. [I am in the Editorial board of OJHAS from Sept 2003]. OJHAS is edited and published by a small group of scholars with no external support. Everything from Web Design to Editing and Review are done by voluntarily by the Editorial team. It also stands as a fine example of the fact that Open Access Journals can indeed be successfully organised and can indeed survive without an "author pays" model. Now coming to the Archival, Cogprints was our first choice for many reasons 1] It offers interoperability [as mentioned by Harnad] 2] It offers unmatched popularity 3] It has been there for years and we can be sure of the permanence 4] It is of course FREE. And as Harnad suggested, there is no reason why Journals should not be archived at Open Archives, be it self maintained repositories or Centralised ones. In fact Open Archiving of electronic journals is the need of the hour because our own studies [unpublished] show that Electronic journals are just as ephemeral as websites. Scholarly communication should never be lost at the cost of copyright restrictions. Many of these journals have perhaps done more harm than good by locking the access by copyright restrictions. Moreover, electronic journals are equally vulnerable to the vagaries of the Internet. For example, JMIR www. jmir. org went suddenly offline some time back [i think it was an year or so] making the whole content inaccessible. [But it reappeared later and now is an Open Access Journal]. Thus in short, OPen Archiving of Journals as a whole is perhaps to be discussed in a wider perspective than just making it OPEN. The major emphasis should be the PERMANENCE of Open Archiving. I hope this post will surely trigger a debate on the topic. Kind regards Dr. Vinod Scaria Executive Editor: Calicut Medical Journal Assoc Editor: Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences Editor in Chief: Internet He@ lth WEB: www. drvinod. netfirms. com MAIL: vinodscaria@yahoo. co. in Mobile: +91 98474 65452 - Original Message - From: Stevan Harnad To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM@LISTSERVER. SIGMAXI. ORG Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:38 AM Subject: Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives The two items that follow below are by Vinod Scario from Peter Suber's Open Access News http://www. earlham. edu/~peters/fos/fosblog. html It provides an interesting and inspiring example of the power and value of OAI-interoperability http://www. openarchives. org/ and the interdependence of the two open-access strategies (open-access self-archiving and open-access journal publishing) that this new online open-access journal, produced in India, is being made accessible by archiving it http://calicutmedicaljournal. org/archives. html in a specially created sector of CogPrints in the UK, http://cogprints. ecs. soton. ac. uk/view/subjects/JOURNALS. html a multidisciplinary central archive created in 1997 for author self-archiving (which is now being done more via distributed institutional eprint archives -- to which the CogPrints software was adapted by Rob Tansley, creator of eprints http://software. eprints. org/#ep2 and then of dspace http://www. dspace. org/ -- rather than via central ones like CogPrints). Yet there is no reason a central archive like CogPrin
Re: Distinguishing the Essentials from the Optional Add-Ons
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Hugo Fjelsted Alrøe wrote: > I agree that the postprint will fulfil most of what the published article > provides. But there is one thing which is quite essential, and which has > sofar mainly been provided by the final versions of papers published > in scientific journals. That is the page numbers used for reference > when citing works. In many cases scholarly citing needs more precision > than merely citing an article (or worse, a book) as a whole. If the > referencing is not sufficiently precise, this will hamper the process > of peer criticism, which is an essential aspect of science. Surely citing the URL of the full text (plus the section name and the paragraph number, as you go on to note below) -- and even quoting enough of the passage commented so that it can be found by character-string search -- is incomparably more useful than the old papyrocentric page number (which will in any case be replaced by the paragraph number, in the new online world)! (For URL permanence, please see threads on OpenURL and OAI.) > Greater availability of pre- and postprints (and the speed-up involved, > which I believe to be a great benefit to the process of science) will > presumably increase the wish to refer to these in other papers. Since > pre- and postprints will typically have other page numbers (if any) > than the published article, referring to the pre- and postprints may > obfuscate the scientific communication. This will probably be of less > importance in some disciplines than in others, due to differences in > the form of scholarly writing. Page numbers are an obsolete paper-era approximation to scholarly citation! > New technology and new conventions for scholarly writing may well provide > new answers to this potential referencing problem. In fully electronic > journals that utilize the power of the html format, for instance, > one solution is to number paragraphs instead of pages. The point is > that there is a need for adaquate standards of referencing and that > the existing standards are challenged by the changes involved in the > development towards open access (which I fully support). Therefore we > need to address this issue in the open access movement. Page numbers are *already* obsolete for online work. They have been superseded by a much more powerful and exact way of pinpointing the passage in question. http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/guidelines.html#submission (Even in a paginated PDF, I would infinitely prefer to cite a passage by section and paragraph number, plus a unique string for grepping right to the words in question! Even primitive PDF has string-grepping capability). Harnad, S. (1995) Interactive Cognition: Exploring the Potentional of Electronic Quote/Commenting. In: B. Gorayska & J. L. Mey (Eds.) Cognitive Technology: In Search of a Humane Interface. Elsevier P. 397-414. http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/documents/disk0/00/00/15/99/index.html Harnad, S. (2003) Back to the Oral Tradition Through Skywriting at the Speed of Thought. Interdisciplines. http://www.interdisciplines.org/defispublicationweb/papers/6 Stevan Harnad > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > Fra: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > > Sendt: 29. oktober 2003 13:27 > > Til: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > > Emne: Re: Distinguishing the Essentials from the Optional Add-Ons > > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Chris Korycinski wrote: > > > > Re: > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3115.html > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/att-3115/01-0Licence.PDF > > > > > the next faq from Nature says that 'you may not distribute the > > > PDF... on open archives'. So presumably you can still keep _your_ > > > version of the article on an open archive, but not the one which was > > > published in Nature. > > > > That does not matter *in the least*! The publisher's proprietary PDF > > contains added-values to be sure, but I am betting (and please stay > > tuned!), that the the only thing researchers really want and > > need is the peer-reviewed final draft. > >
Re: Distinguishing the Essentials from the Optional Add-Ons
I agree that the postprint will fulfil most of what the published article provides. But there is one thing which is quite essential, and which has sofar mainly been provided by the final versions of papers published in scientific journals. That is the page numbers used for reference when citing works. In many cases scholarly citing needs more precision than merely citing an article (or worse, a book) as a whole. If the referencing is not sufficiently precise, this will hamper the process of peer criticism, which is an essential aspect of science. Greater availability of pre- and postprints (and the speed-up involved, which I believe to be a great benefit to the process of science) will presumably increase the wish to refer to these in other papers. Since pre- and postprints will typically have other page numbers (if any) than the published article, referring to the pre- and postprints may obfuscate the scientific communication. This will probably be of less importance in some disciplines than in others, due to differences in the form of scholarly writing. New technology and new conventions for scholarly writing may well provide new answers to this potential referencing problem. In fully electronic journals that utilize the power of the html format, for instance, one solution is to number paragraphs instead of pages. The point is that there is a need for adaquate standards of referencing and that the existing standards are challenged by the changes involved in the development towards open access (which I fully support). Therefore we need to address this issue in the open access movement. Kind regards Hugo Alroe > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > Sendt: 29. oktober 2003 13:27 > Til: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Emne: Re: Distinguishing the Essentials from the Optional Add-Ons > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Chris Korycinski wrote: > > Re: > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3115.html > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/att-3115/01-0Licence.PDF > > > the next faq from Nature says that 'you may not distribute the > > PDF... on open archives'. So presumably you can still keep _your_ > > version of the article on an open archive, but not the one which was > > published in Nature. > > That does not matter *in the least*! The publisher's proprietary PDF > contains added-values to be sure, but I am betting (and please stay > tuned!), that the the only thing researchers really want and > need is the peer-reviewed final draft.
Re: Petitions, Boycotts, and Liberating the Refereed Literature Online
A boycott alone is insufficient. Michel Prevet's posting about the UCSC proposed boycott of Elsevier included in its PS *exactly* what is needed to supplement any institutional boycott: >mp> PS. My most recent preprints and postprints can be downloaded from >mp> http://hal.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ (domain "earth sciences/geophysics") >mp> For information about Open Access self-archiving and publishing see >mp> http://www.isteem.univ-montp2.fr/ISTEEM/BIBLIOTHEQUE/indexpreprint.html Boycotts are for lowering journal tolls, and that is a welcome goal, worth fighting for. But what researchers need now is not just lower-toll access but open access. It would accordingly be far more sensible -- and far more effective -- to supplement any institutional efforts to lower journal costs with an explicit, systematic policy of making all institutional refereed research output open-access by self-archiving it: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm >uc> the University of California is one of Elsevier's largest customers. >uc> UC Faculty members are important players in Elsevier's >uc> journals. 10-15% of the content is written by UC faculty, >uc> 1000 faculty are on the boards of Elsevier journals, and >uc> about 150 faculty are senior editors for those journals. That's fine for 15% of UC's research output. And since Elsevier is a Romeo "blue" (and probably also "green") publisher http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm all of that UC Elsevier content can be immediately self-archived without further ado. But what about the remaining 85% of UC research output? And what about UC access to the remaining 85% of Elsevier content? UC self-archiving would take care of all the UC research output, and other institutions doing the very same thing would take care of all the rest. (In fact, they don't even need to boycott Elsevier: they need only self-archive!) >uc> Alternative forms of scholarly communication need to be >uc> considered. The California Digital Library (CDL) has been >uc> pioneering new forms of publication including the >uc> eScholarship Repository. Through the CDL, the University of >uc> California also provides tangible support for new scholarly >uc> publishing initiatives that promise high-quality >uc> peer-reviewed content at affordable prices, including the >uc> Public Library of Science and BioMEd Central. There are 500 alternative (open-access) journals. Is open access to the contents of the remaining 23,500 more likely to occur by waiting to replace them one by one, or by a collective policy of institutional self-archiving? >uc> Faculty action to retain intellectual property rights would >uc> also contribute to meeting the challenge. Authors can >uc> negotiate to retain certain rights, including the right to >uc> post their work in an institutional repository Fifty-five percent of the the 7000+ journals samples by the Romeo self-archiving rights project already support self-archiving (including all 1500+ Elsevier journals). Many more will do so if asked. A systematic institutional and research-funder policy of mandating open access for all institutional research output along the lines of the Berlin Declaration will help convert the Romeo "white" journals to "green" far more quickly and effectively than just a boycott will! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin.htm >uc> Therefore, the UCSC Academic Senate resolves to call upon its >uc> tenured members to give serious and careful consideration to >uc> cutting their ties with Elsevier: no longer submitting papers >uc> to Elsevier journals, refusing to referee the submissions of >uc> others, and relinquishing editorial posts should the >uc> UC/Elsevier negotiations prove unsuccessful. I hope the UCSC Senate will give equally serious and careful consideration both to its 85% non-Elsevier research output and to the Elsevier and non-Elsevier output from other institutions, by supplementing its institutional boycott policy with an institutional self-archiving policy. Sometimes the carrot works better than the stick: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html >uc> The Senate also calls upon its Committee on Academic >uc> Personnel to recognize that some faculty may choose not to >uc> submit papers to Elsevier journals even when those journals >uc> are highly ranked. Faculty choosing to follow the advice of >uc> this resolution should not be penalized. Self-archiving their papers no matter where they are submitted will only help increase the impact and personnel-assessment value of their papers. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.htm Here are some background readings on the boycott strategy: "Why price boycott is the wrong strategy" (2000) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0532.html "Petitions, Boycotts, and Liberating the Refereed Literature Online" (2000) http://www.ecs.soton.ac
