Re: Napster: stealing another's vs. giving away one's own

2004-01-13 Thread Stevan Harnad
Consumer Rip-Offs versus Author Give-Aways

Stevan harnad

In the Montreal Gazette today, William Watson (Economics, McGill
University) http://www.mcgill.ca/economics/faculty/watson/
unearthed this old chestnut again:

>   [Providing and Using self-archived articles is like] Napster
>   for nerds. That would be great if the journals and other
>   distribution services charging for research were performing
>   no useful function. But, in fact, they are providing a crucial
>   function: intellectual triage... If everyone free-rode... how
>   would these editors be compensated?

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/editorials/story.asp?id=8BDD8265-FAED-4A08-B867-6137630738C5

Authors self-archiving their own peer-reviewed journal articles on the
web is not "napster for nerds" for the simple reason that napster is a
consumer rip-off whereas author self-archiving is a producer give-away.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#24.Napster

William Watson asks how the peer review could be paid for if everyone
could access the articles for free and no one paid the access-tolls any
more? The answer was in my article.
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=8e912f55-eb8e-459e-8e7a-a7bd6d8dc995

Peer-review costs $500 per article. The journals earn $1500 per article
right now from access-tolls. That pays for peer-review plus a lot of
extras (such as the print version, digital markup, archiving, etc.).

If and when institutions no longer want to pay tolls for those extras
because they are happy with just the plain-vanilla self-archived
open-access versions instead, they will have saved 100% of their annual
toll-access expenses.

Institutions can then use 33% of those annual windfall savings to pay
journals to cover the peer review costs directly, for each outgoing
paper their own authors publish, instead of through access-tolls to buy
in the articles published by other institutions.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm

There are already 1000 "open-access" journals, recovering their costs this
way.  http://www.doaj.org/
But there are still 23,000 toll-access journals. So self-archiving must
come first. It will provide open access for sure. Whether or when it
induces a transition from toll-access to open-access publishing remains
to be seen.

Stevan Harnad

Thread begins:

"Napster: stealing another's vs. giving away one's own"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0671.html

See also:
"Not Napster for Science" (by Peter Suber)
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-02-03.htm#notnapster

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


Re: Estimates on data and cost per department for institutional Archives?

2004-01-13 Thread Stevan Harnad
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Charles W. Bailey, Jr. wrote:

> DSpace has a broader scope than just eprints; however
> some cost data is available...
>
> Barton, Mary R., and Julie Harford  Walker.  "Building a
> Business Plan for DSpace, MIT Libraries' Digital Institutional
> Repository"  Journal of Digital Information   4(2) (2003)
> (http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v04/i02/Barton/). -
>
> ...the authors conservatively estimate a budget of $285,000 for
> FY 2003. The bulk of the costs are for staff ($225,000), with
> smaller allocations for operating expenses ($25,000) and system
> hardware expansion ($35,000). MIT's DSpace service offerings have
> two components: core services (basic repository functions) and
> premium services (e.g., digitization and e-format conversion,
> metadata support, expanded user storage space, and user alerts and
> reports). While core services are free, MIT reserves the right to
> potentially charge for premium services. For further information
> (http://libraries.mit.edu/dspace-fed-test/implement/mellon.pdf)
>
> system development costs "included $1.8 million for development
> as well as 3 FTE HP staff and approximately $400,000 in system equipment."

(1) DSpace's "broader scope" is precisely what I meant by:

"if steam is to gather under institutional archiving
initiatives 'like DSpace' then they need to get their act
together and focus it specifically on the institutional
self-archiving of peer-reviewed research output."
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3415.html

(2) Other costs, for other uses, are irrelevant and should not be
factored in. (That includes all staff and operating expenses related to
those other uses.)

(3) EPrints cost an order of magnitude less to develop (and it was
developed, before DSpace, by the same person who developed DSpace,
Rob Tansley, but following specs that were specifically focussed on
the self-archiving of institutional peer-reviewed research output,
not other things).

(4) Creating and maintaining EPrint costs *two* orders of magnitude less
than the above figures for DSpace.

(5) None of these figures will answer my question about how much
self-archiving costs *per paper* until we reckon in the annual
institutional research article output.

(6) The biggest difference between DSpace and EPrints is that EPrints
does not offer a *business plan,* as above, but a plan for filling the
archives with the targetted content: the annual institutional research
article output.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#institution-facilitate-filling
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#researcher/authors-do
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#research-funders-do
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#publishers-do

EPrints, in other words, is only about OA provision. DSpace is
about many other things. You will only mislead yourself and others
if you factor in the costs of all those other things in reckoning OA
self-archiving costs. DSpace and EPrints are equivalent insofar as their
OA self-archiving capabilities are concerned, and those are the only
capabilities with which those who are interested in OA provision need
be concerned.

(Before replying about preservation, digital content management,
courseware or electronic publication, please see the prior discussions
below!)

"EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2670.html
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2837.html

Stevan Harnad

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


Re: Estimates on data and cost per department for institutional Archives?

2004-01-13 Thread Charles W. Bailey, Jr.
DSpace has a broader scope than just eprints; however,
some cost data is available in the two documents I described
below (from Current Cites volume 14, no. 12,
December 2003):

Barton, Mary R., and Julie Harford  Walker.  "[29]Building a
Business Plan for DSpace, MIT Libraries' Digital Institutional
Repository"  [30]Journal of Digital Information   4(2) (2003)
(http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v04/i02/Barton/). -
Currently, there is a great deal of interest in institutional
repositories, but little is known about their costs. This article
outlines MIT's business plan for its well-known DSpace repository.
Not considering software development and system implementation
costs, the authors conservatively estimate a budget of $285,000 for
FY 2003. The bulk of the costs are for staff ($225,000), with
smaller allocations for operating expenses ($25,000) and system
hardware expansion ($35,000). MIT's DSpace service offerings have
two components: core services (basic repository functions) and
premium services (e.g., digitization and e-format conversion,
metadata support, expanded user storage space, and user alerts and
reports). While core services are free, MIT reserves the right to
potentially charge for premium services. For further information
see: MIT Libraries' DSpace Business Plan Project--Final Report to
the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
([31]http://libraries.mit.edu/dspace-fed-test/implement/mellon.pdf)
,which indicates that system development costs "included $1.8
million for development as well as 3 FTE HP staff and approximately
$400,000 in system equipment." - [32]CB


Best Regards,
Charles

Charles W. Bailey, Jr., Assistant Dean for Digital Library
Planning and Development, University of Houston,
Library Administration, 114 University Libraries,
Houston, TX 77204-2000.  E-mail: cbai...@uh.edu.
Voice: (713) 743-9804.  Fax: (713) 743-9811.
http://info.lib.uh.edu/cwb/bailey.htm


Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

2004-01-13 Thread Stevan Harnad
This scriptural exegesis about "free" vs. "open" calls to mind
the (alleged) words of a certain franco-austrian monarchess on the
subject of brioche:

"Let Them Eat Cake..." (M. Antoinette)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1525.html

What research needs is toll-free access to all refereed research,
immediately, to stanch its mounting impact-loss.

It doesn't have it. Why on earth are we bickering about "open" vs. "free"
instead of doing everything we can to hasten the stanching of that
impact-loss, now?

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0025.gif

The BOAI definition of "open access" is not Holy Writ. We wrote it!
We keep quoting back the same passages at one another, but we differ
in our interpretation of them. I have already answered this point of
Mike's several times over, but, for the sake of OA, I'm willing to say
it yet again:

Michael Eisen wrote:

>s> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>s>
>s> There is nothing in the BOAI definition to support the "free/open"
>s> distinction that some have since attempted to make. In particular, the
>s> BOAI definition states that author/institution self-archiving of the
>s> full-text of an article is one of the two ways to make that article open
>s> access (BOAI-1 ["green"]  and BOAI-2 ["gold"]). Proponents of
>s> the free/open distinction have attempted to argue that BOAI-2 is
>s> "open access" while BOAI-1 is merely "free access" (unless the author
>s> negotiates something equivalent to the creative commons license, including
>s> republication rights, as in some BOAI-2 journals).
>s>
>s> I have argued that this is not only *not* part of the BOAI definition,
>s> but that it is unnecessary and would be a gratuitous deterrent if
>s> taken to be a necessary condition for open access.
>
> I really don't want to beat this to death, and I think you and I are just
> going to have to agree to disagree about the importance of redistribution
> and reuse rights. However, I don't see how you can keep saying that the BOAI
> doesn't support the distinction between free and open. The BOAI text can
> speak for itself.
>
>   "By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its free
>   availability on the public internet, permitting any users to
>   read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the
>   full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them
>   as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose,
>   without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those
>   inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only
>   constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role
>   for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control
>   over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly
>   acknowledged and cited."
>   [ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess ]

As I have said repeatedly, every single capability listed in the
first sentence above is provided by authors self-archiving their own
full-texts on the web. Every single one.

In the case of articles made OA through author self-archiving, the "other
lawful purposes" simply does not include republishing by a third-party
publisher, either on paper or online. That's all.

Open access was always about open access, not about 3rd party republishing
rights. (Moreover, with the article available to one and all --
for reading, downloading, copying, distributing *the URL* to others
(so they can do likewise), printing, searching, linking, crawling,
indexing, passing to software or any other lawful purposes -- it is
not at all clear why any 3rd part publisher would want to republish and
redistribute them!)

The second sentence of the BOAI definition is vague, and it is not clear
what the "should" means.

Of course authorship and text integrity need to be protected. They
are protected either way: whether the OA is provided by (1) publishing
the text in an OA journal under a creative-commons license or by (2)
publishing the text in an OA journal under ordinary copyright transfer,
but the OA journal (being OA) contracts to make the full-text OA
from its own website (as so many of the OA journals listed in DOAJ
http://www.doaj.org/ do, and to retain republishing rights  -- or is
Mike suggesting that they not be counted as OA journals either, if they
do not adopt the Creative Commons License?) or by (3) self-archiving
the full-text on the author's own institutional website.

As to the force of the "should" regarding republishing rights: it is
vague, and if construed as "must," it is either in contradiction with the
"any other lawful purpose" clause of the first sentence *or* it excludes
all self-archived full-texts a priori if they do not renegotiate rights
with their publisher: This would be to redefine BOAI-1: "Self-archiving
one's own full text, free for all uses on the web, is *not* OA!"

I assure you that if that far

Re: Free Access vs. Open Access

2004-01-13 Thread Michael Eisen
>
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> There is nothing in the BOAI definition to support the "free/open"
> distinction that some have since attempted to make. In particular, the
> BOAI definition states that author/institution self-archiving of the
> full-text of an article is one of the two ways to make that article open
> access (BOAI-1 ["green"]  and BOAI-2 ["gold"]). Proponents of
> the free/open distinction have attempted to argue that BOAI-2 is
> "open access" while BOAI-1 is merely "free access" (unless the author
> negotiates something equivalent to the creative commons license, including
> republication rights, as in some BOAI-2 journals).
>
> I have argued that this is not only *not* part of the BOAI definition,
> but that it is unnecessary and would be a gratuitous deterrent if
> taken to be a necessary condition for open access.
>

I really don't want to beat this to death, and I think you and I are just
going to have to agree to disagree about the importance of redistribution
and reuse rights. However, I don't see how you can keep saying that the BOAI
doesn't support the distinction between free and open. The BOAI text can
speak for itself.

By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its free availability on the
public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute,
print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for
indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful
purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those
inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint
on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this
domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work
and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited."

I have been arguing that self-archiving where the original publisher
restricts uses of the self-archived version of the paper falls outside the
BOAI definition of open access. While I disagree strongly with you on this,
I accept that you think there are tactical reasons to promote such
restricted self-archiving.  But I simply can not see how you can claim that
making papers freely available in a way that explicitly prevents copying,
distribution and many other uses is consistent with the BOAI definition of
open access.


Re: EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?

2004-01-13 Thread Stevan Harnad
This topic thread:

"EPrints, DSpace or ESpace?"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2670.html
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2837.html

Peter Suber reported the following in Open Access News
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_01_11_fosblogarchive.html#a107394650955511367

"Outsell http://www.outsellinc.com/index.html has released 13
predictions for the information content industry in 2004.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20040112005739&newsLang=en

"Here's prediction #6: "The Open Access movement in scholarly and
scientific publications will gain legitimacy."

"In a separate, downloadable report to accompany the predictions,
http://www.outsellinc.com/subscribe/freebriefsOutlook.htm Outsell
says this about open access (p. 9): "The Open Access movement
in scholarly and scientific publications will gain legitimacy as
it transforms from a loose collection of disjointed initiatives
into a new model backed by major universities and institutions
worldwideAcademic institutions and the scholarly publishing
world have been at loggerheads for years over the increasing cost
of journal subscriptions. The irony is that most scholarly content
is created by individuals employed by universities, who are then
required to pay for it again in the form of published works. The new
Public Library of Science is only the most prominent in a series of
open-access challenges to the scholarly publishing industry, which
finds itself in a real crisis situation as users and the organizations
they work for start to revolt. As steam gathers under institutional
archiving initiatives like DSpace, the infrastructure will be in
place to support peer-to-peer from the get-go. Where there is a will,
there is a way, and technology is providing the 'way' to enable
creative new solutions for distribution, access, and sharing
of scholarly content. Watch for even more radical and flexible
knowledge-sharing initiatives in this space that will increasingly
call into question the structure of an entire publishing sector."

I only want to add that if steam is to gather under institutional
archiving initiatives "like DSpace" then they need to get their act
together and focus it specifically on the institutional self-archiving
of peer-reviewed research output. Right now, DSpace, like EPrints,
offers software, but unlike EPrints, DSpace offers absolutely no guidance
or focus on what the software should be used for (i.e., how it is that
institutions should go about designing and implementing a self-archiving
policy).
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/

"Archiving" is a big word, and means (far too) many things to (too)
many people. Having MIT behind the self-archiving movement looked
promising initially, but until and unless they get it into focus, DSpace
will just continue to be a magnet for software downloads that generate
everything except open-access peer-reviewed research output!

(Having said that, I have to add that the EPrints archives so far
are mostly near-empty too:
http://software.eprints.org/archives.php
125 archives containing only 33,259 papers still averages only 250
papers per archive -- which is a far cry from each institution's annual
peer-reviewed research article output! And in reality, even this is
misleading, as there are a few EPrints archives with a lot of output
and most of the rest with far less than 250! So even the "focussed"
approach could stand to be more forceful!)

This is not to say that open-access publishing (the "golden road" to
open access) is doing any better! It is in fact providing far *less"
open access annually than the "green" road of self-archiving (about one
third as much). But it is at least operating nearer capacity (1000 out
of 24,000 journals http://www.doaj.org/ is about 5%). Self-archiving
could be providing the other 95% already. But the research community
is passively waiting for imminent radical transitions to the golden
publishing model -- they are alas not happening: the actual data are
nothing like the chatter -- instead of taking matters into their own
hands and providing open access overnight by self-archiving.

What is needed is some vision, guidance and leadership: and a focused
institutional open-access provision policy. That's not going to come
from Outsell's financial prognostications.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0022.gif

Stevan Harnad

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://

Re: UK Select Committee Inquiry into Scientific Publication

2004-01-13 Thread David Prosser
But surely we don't want to settle for anything less than 100%!  And
what about those who are not served by the research libraries, wouldn't
it be wonderful if they could get access as well?

'Enlightened licensing' may put us in a better position than we were in
before, but it is still sub-optimal.

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 Sally Morris
Sent: 12 January 2004 23:54
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: UK Select Committee Inquiry into Scientific Publication

I think the CILIP response ignores the fact that new licensing
arrangements
from publishers have actually significantly increased the percentage of
available literature which library patrons can now access.  I'm not
saying
it's anything like 100 percent, but it is much improved

Sally

NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS - PLEASE UPDATE YOUR RECORDS.   THANKS!

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

Phone:  +44 (0)1903 871686 Fax:  +44 (0)1903 871457
E-mail:  chief-e...@alpsp.org
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org

Our journal, Learned Publishing, is included in the
ALPSP Learned Journals Collection, www.alpsp-collection.org


Re: UK Select Committee Inquiry into Scientific Publication

2004-01-13 Thread Stevan Harnad
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Sally Morris wrote:

> I think the CILIP response ignores the fact that new licensing arrangements
> from publishers have actually significantly increased the percentage of
> available literature which library patrons can now access.  I'm not saying
> it's anything like 100 percent, but it is much improved

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0401&L=lis-cilip&T=0&F=&S=&P=2176
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3407.html

Licensing improves the return on the tolls for the HAVES who can afford
the tolls. Open access is about the HAVE-NOTS who cannot afford the
tolls.

The relevant facts are these:

(1) There are 24,000 peer-reviewed research journals worldwide, publishing
2.5 million articles per year.

(2) 23,000 of these 24,000 (>95%) are toll-access journals. (Tolls
are: subscriptions, licenses, pay-to-view.)

(3) It is true of every single toll-access article that (the institutions
of) most its potential users worldwide cannot afford access to it, no
matter how good the licensing arrangements. (Call that the worldwide
"HARVARD/HAVE-NOT" ratio.)

(4) The above (3) would continue to be true even if every one of the
toll-access journals were sold *at cost."

(5) Consequently it is true of every single toll-access article that
it is losing most of its potential research impact -- daily, weekly,
monthly, yearly, and cumulatively.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0025.gif

(6) Consequently, the research community and the progress, productivity
and impact of research require that toll-access for the HARVARDS be
supplemented with open-access for the HAVE-NOTS, regardless of the
licensing arrangements.

 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0047.gif
 http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#29.Sitting

Stevan Harnad

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.ecs.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


Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access

2004-01-13 Thread Stevan Harnad
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote:

> As a movement, open access could do worse than follow Stevan's strategy:
> publish in an open access journal when you can; if there is no open access
> journal for you, publish where you can and self-archive.

Amen!

"that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
-John Keats

> As a company, we have taken on the daunting task of delivering open
> access to the academic community...

Let us hope that in taking on this daunting task BMC will not do worse,
promoting only organic food and passing in silence over the part about
how to feed the starving: As long as BMC and PLoS have institututions'
and research funders' ears, they have a historic duty to tell them the
whole truth, and not just the part that is pertinent to the product they
are delivering.

> Stevan's been banging the drum for at least a decade now

Stay tuned! You ain't heard nothin' yet...

Stevan Harnad

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.ecs.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