Re: Brisbane declaration on Open Access (fwd)
This declaration has got swallowed up amongst the c**P that has polluted this forum in the last days. May I tease out a few strands of the Brisbane Declaration for readers of the list, as a person who was at the OAR Conference in Brisbane. 1. The Declaration was adopted on the voices at the Conference, revised in line with comments, and then participants were asked to put their names to it post-conference. It represents an overwhelming consensus of the active members of the repository community in Australia. 2. The Conference wanted a succinct statement that could be used to explain to senior university administrators, ministers, and the public as to what Australia should do about making its research accessible. It is not a policy, as it does not mention any of the exceptions and legalisms that are inevitably needed in a formal policy. 3. The Conference wanted to support the two Australian Ministers with responsibility for Innovation, Science and Health in their moves to make open access mandatory for all Australian-funded research. 4. Note in passing that the Declaration is not restricted to peer-reviewed articles, but looks forward to sharing of research data and knowledge (in the humanities and arts). 5. At the same time, it was widely recognized that publishers' pdfs (Versions of Record) were not the preferred version of an article to hold in a repository, primarily because a pdf is a print-based concept which loses a lot of convenience and information for harvesting, but also in recognition of the formatting work of journal editors (which should never change the essence of an article). The Declaration explicitly make it clear that it is the final draft (Accepted Manuscript) which is preferred. The Version of Record remains the citable object. 6. The Declaration also endorses author self-archiving of the final draft at the time of acceptance, implying the ID/OA policy (Immediate Deposit, OA when possible). While the Brisbane Declaration is aimed squarely at Australian research, I believe that it offers a model for other countries. It does not talk in pieties, but in terms of action. It is capable of implementation in one year throughout Australia. Point 1 is written so as to include citizens from anywhere in the world, in the hope of reciprocity. The only important thing missing is a timescale, and that's because we believe Australia stands at a cusp.. What are the chances of a matching declaration in other countries? Arthur Sale University of Tasmania == Following the conference on Open Access and Research held in September in Australia, and hosted by Queensland University of Technology, the following statement was developed and has the endorsement of over sixty participants. Brisbane Declaration Preamble The participants recognise Open Access as a strategic enabling activity, on which research and inquiry will rely at international, national, university, group and individual levels. Strategies Therefore the participants resolve the following as a summary of the basic strategies that Australia must adopt: 1 Every citizen should have free open access to publicly funded research, data and knowledge. 2 Every Australian university should have access to a digital repository to store its research outputs for this purpose. 3 As a minimum, this repository should contain all materials reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC). 4 The deposit of materials should take place as soon as possible, and in the case of published research articles should be of the author's final draft at the time of acceptance so as to maximize open access to the material. Brisbane, September, 2008
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
[ The following text is in the utf-8 character set. ] [ Your display is set for the iso-8859-1 character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] And me (on pda travelling) Prof Keith G Jeffery -Original Message- From: Alma Swan a.s...@talk21.com To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: 07/10/08 20:00 Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM I absolutely agree with Michael - the list would die without Stevan Tony -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Michael Eisen Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:26 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I disagree with Stevan often. He can be infuriating. He has a tendency to bloviate. Nonetheless - he has been a FANTASTIC moderator of this list. I have sent off many posts that have criticized Stevan directly, and he has never failed to send them to the group. I can think of no other list that has not just lasted for 10 years, but kept up a high level of discourse and relevance. Stevan has my complete confidence. The list would die without him. On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:37 AM, c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: I totally support Jean-Claude's view. I can only repeat what I said before: (1) I am happy to put an end to my 10-year moderatorship of the American Scientist Open Access Forum and hand it over to someone else who is willing to do it, but only if it is requested by a plurality of the membership, not if it is merely requested by a few dissatisfied members. (2) The moderator's role is to filter postings, approving the relevant ones, and rejecting the off-topic or ad-hominem ones. (3) Apart from that, the moderator has no special status or authority (other than what may accrue from the substance of his postings), and may post *exactly* as any other poster may post, including the posting of quotes, comments, critiques, elaborations, rebuttals *and summaries*. By my count, there have not been many votes one way or the other, but of the few votes there have been, more seem to be expressing confidence in my moderatorship than those that are calling for me to be replaced. I have also been accused of of censorship, by both Jean-Claude and Sally, the charge being subsequently rescinded. If there are doubts about whether I can be trusted to post or tally the votes -- or, more important, if we are to spare the Forum the bandwidth of votes appearing instead of OA substance -- I am also quite happy to direct the votes to be sent to a trusted 3rd party for tallying, if that is the wish of the Forum. Stevan Harnad Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim Head Department of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough Leics LE11 3TU Tel 01509-223065 Fax 01509 223053 e mail c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS- fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon Sent: 06 October 2008 19:00 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: American Scientist Open Access Forum settings What I note is that my messages sometimes appear back very late and I wonder why. It is this detail which caused my recent angry reaction. While we are on technical matters, I would appreciate two things from this moderator/actor: 1. That he should refrain from ever summarizing somebody's words. We are all versed enough in the art of reading to be able to survive without this doubtful form of help. Besides, list moderators are not mentors or paternal figures. When the summary ends up distorting the original message, it becomes reprehensible; 2. Since the moderator also intervenes as member in this list, he should make clear which of his interventions are moderating interventions and which ones are
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
My confidence vote for Stevan Ingegerd Rabow Lund, Sweden -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery, KG (Keith) Sent: den 9 oktober 2008 06:20 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum And me (on pda travelling) Prof Keith G Jeffery -Original Message- From: Alma Swan a.s...@talk21.com To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: 07/10/08 20:00 Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM I absolutely agree with Michael - the list would die without Stevan Tony -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Michael Eisen Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:26 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I disagree with Stevan often. He can be infuriating. He has a tendency to bloviate. Nonetheless - he has been a FANTASTIC moderator of this list. I have sent off many posts that have criticized Stevan directly, and he has never failed to send them to the group. I can think of no other list that has not just lasted for 10 years, but kept up a high level of discourse and relevance. Stevan has my complete confidence. The list would die without him. On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:37 AM, c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: I totally support Jean-Claude's view. I can only repeat what I said before: (1) I am happy to put an end to my 10-year moderatorship of the American Scientist Open Access Forum and hand it over to someone else who is willing to do it, but only if it is requested by a plurality of the membership, not if it is merely requested by a few dissatisfied members. (2) The moderator's role is to filter postings, approving the relevant ones, and rejecting the off-topic or ad-hominem ones. (3) Apart from that, the moderator has no special status or authority (other than what may accrue from the substance of his postings), and may post *exactly* as any other poster may post, including the posting of quotes, comments, critiques, elaborations, rebuttals *and summaries*. By my count, there have not been many votes one way or the other, but of the few votes there have been, more seem to be expressing confidence in my moderatorship than those that are calling for me to be replaced. I have also been accused of of censorship, by both Jean-Claude and Sally, the charge being subsequently rescinded. If there are doubts about whether I can be trusted to post or tally the votes -- or, more important, if we are to spare the Forum the bandwidth of votes appearing instead of OA substance -- I am also quite happy to direct the votes to be sent to a trusted 3rd party for tallying, if that is the wish of the Forum. Stevan Harnad Charles Professor Charles Oppenheim Head Department of Information Science Loughborough University Loughborough Leics LE11 3TU Tel 01509-223065 Fax 01509 223053 e mail c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS- fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon Sent: 06 October 2008 19:00 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: American Scientist Open Access Forum settings What I note is that my messages sometimes appear back very late and I wonder why. It is this detail which caused my recent angry reaction. While we are on technical matters, I would appreciate two things from this moderator/actor: 1. That he should refrain from ever summarizing somebody's words. We are all versed enough in the art of reading to be able to survive without this doubtful form of help. Besides, list moderators are not mentors or paternal figures. When the summary ends up
University of Glasgow announces new Publications Policy
** Apologies for cross-posting** University of Glasgow announces new Publications Policy The University of Glasgow is proud to announce a new Publications Policy which will require authors to deposit the full text of peer reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings in the University's institutional repository Enlighten (http://www.gla.ac.uk/enlighten) where publisher agreements permit this. The University has been at the forefront of repository developments since 2002 when the internationally recognised DAEDALUS Project, funded by JISC, was founded. Glasgow is an internationally renowned research intensive University producing thousands of research publications each year. In joining major institutions and funding bodies worldwide the University recognises the importance of free and unrestricted access to scholarly literature in the furtherance of research; and the importance to researchers of maximising the impact of their research across the world. Professor Steven Beaumont, OBE CEng FRSE Vice-Principal Research and Enterprise said 'The University of Glasgow generates over 3,000 research papers per year. Since we began to put these into Enlighten on a voluntary basis there have been over 1 million downloads. Enlighten really does help the University to showcase its research and to increase the impact of that it has on society. This new policy will make that impact even greater. I very much appreciate the support of Senate in adopting this move.' Details of the policy, which was approved by the University Senate, are available at http://www.lib.gla.ac.uk/enlighten/publicationspolicy/index.html. The policy came into effect at the beginning of the 2008/2009 academic year. 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
Re: Brisbane declaration on Open Access (fwd)
On 9-Oct-08, at 7:37 AM, Peter D. Mosses wrote: Could you clarify the following point: 5. At the same time, it was widely recognized that publishers' pdfs (Versions of Record) were not the preferred version of an article to hold in a repository, primarily because a pdf is a print-based concept which loses a lot of convenience and information for harvesting, but also in recognition of the formatting work of journal editors (which should never change the essence of an article). The Declaration explicitly make it clear that it is the final draft (Accepted Manuscript) which is preferred. The Version of Record remains the citable object. What exactly is the Brisbane preferred format for the Accepted Manuscript, if not pdf? Is it Word or LaTeX source files (I sincerely hope not!) or something completely different from pdf? Moreover, although pdfs are indeed good for printing, they are also extremely useful for browsing online. Thanks to support for searching, annotation, bookmarks and active hyperlinks, a pdf can be much more useful than the printed version - and much less expensive on trees than glossy journals! I guess we all agree that open access to the Accepted Manuscript is better than nothing while an article is still in press. But as soon as the publisher provides the pdf of the final version online, wouldn't we prefer to find that in the open (or restricted) access repository, instead of the final draft? - especially since we may indeed expect the publisher's pdf to be better formatted... Dear Peter: There are two important, independent factors here: (1) Yes, PDF is preferable to print on paper, but XML is optimal online. (2) There are far more publisher restrictions and embargoes on the publisher's PDF than on the author's final, peer-reviewed draft. Hence the latter is the one that should be deposited, to maximise OA. (This is independent of the question of the format of the author's draft. The author can generate his own PDF if he wishes; HTML or XML is even better. It is the *publisher's* proprietary PDF that should on no account be the default option.) Stevan -- Peter Prof Peter D Mosses p.d.mos...@swan.ac.uk Dept of Computer Science, Swansea University Personal web page: www.cs.swan.ac.uk/~cspdm/
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
OK. Stevan has my vote. Jean-Max Noyer Université de Paris7 Le 9 oct. 08 à 14:09, Ingegerd Rabow a écrit : My confidence vote for Stevan Ingegerd Rabow Lund, Sweden -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Jeffery, KG (Keith) Sent: den 9 oktober 2008 06:20 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum And me (on pda travelling) Prof Keith G Jeffery -Original Message- From: Alma Swan a.s...@talk21.com To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: 07/10/08 20:00 Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I agree. Stevan should remain, doing his own inimitable thing, which has been invaluable for OA. He keeps things focused and provides an input that is uniquely useful. Count me in on the 'aye' side, please. Alma Swan Key Perspectives Ltd Truro, UK --- On Tue, 7/10/08, Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com wrote: From: Tony Hey tony@microsoft.com Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Date: Tuesday, 7 October, 2008, 3:40 PM I absolutely agree with Michael - the list would die without Stevan Tony -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Michael Eisen Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 7:26 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum I disagree with Stevan often. He can be infuriating. He has a tendency to bloviate. Nonetheless - he has been a FANTASTIC moderator of this list. I have sent off many posts that have criticized Stevan directly, and he has never failed to send them to the group. I can think of no other list that has not just lasted for 10 years, but kept up a high level of discourse and relevance. Stevan has my complete confidence. The list would die without him. On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:37 AM, c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk c.oppenh...@lboro.ac.uk wrote: I totally support Jean-Claude's view. I can only repeat what I said before: (1) I am happy to put an end to my 10-year moderatorship of the American Scientist Open Access Forum and hand it over to someone else who is willing to do it, but only if it is requested by a plurality of the membership, not if it is merely requested by a few dissatisfied members. (2) The moderator's role is to filter postings, approving the relevant ones, and rejecting the off-topic or ad-hominem ones. (3) Apart from that, the moderator has no special status or authority (other than what may accrue from the substance of his postings), and may post *exactly* as any other poster may post, including the posting of quotes, comments, critiques, elaborations, rebuttals *and summaries*. By my count, there have not been many votes one way or the other, but of the few votes there have been, more seem to be expressing confidence in my moderatorship than those that are calling for me to be replaced.
Re: Brisbane declaration on Open Access (fwd)
Perhaps it's worth just pointing out that the Version of Record is not necessarily in PDF format Sally Sally Morris Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy) 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 Arthur Sale Sent: 09 October 2008 02:17 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Brisbane declaration on Open Access (fwd) This declaration has got swallowed up amongst the c**P that has polluted this forum in the last days. May I tease out a few strands of the Brisbane Declaration for readers of the list, as a person who was at the OAR Conference in Brisbane. 1. The Declaration was adopted on the voices at the Conference, revised in line with comments, and then participants were asked to put their names to it post-conference. It represents an overwhelming consensus of the active members of the repository community in Australia. 2. The Conference wanted a succinct statement that could be used to explain to senior university administrators, ministers, and the public as to what Australia should do about making its research accessible. It is not a policy, as it does not mention any of the exceptions and legalisms that are inevitably needed in a formal policy. 3. The Conference wanted to support the two Australian Ministers with responsibility for Innovation, Science and Health in their moves to make open access mandatory for all Australian-funded research. 4. Note in passing that the Declaration is not restricted to peer-reviewed articles, but looks forward to sharing of research data and knowledge (in the humanities and arts). 5. At the same time, it was widely recognized that publishers' pdfs (Versions of Record) were not the preferred version of an article to hold in a repository, primarily because a pdf is a print-based concept which loses a lot of convenience and information for harvesting, but also in recognition of the formatting work of journal editors (which should never change the essence of an article). The Declaration explicitly make it clear that it is the final draft (Accepted Manuscript) which is preferred. The Version of Record remains the citable object. 6. The Declaration also endorses author self-archiving of the final draft at the time of acceptance, implying the ID/OA policy (Immediate Deposit, OA when possible). While the Brisbane Declaration is aimed squarely at Australian research, I believe that it offers a model for other countries. It does not talk in pieties, but in terms of action. It is capable of implementation in one year throughout Australia. Point 1 is written so as to include citizens from anywhere in the world, in the hope of reciprocity. The only important thing missing is a timescale, and that's because we believe Australia stands at a cusp.. What are the chances of a matching declaration in other countries? Arthur Sale University of Tasmania == Following the conference on Open Access and Research held in September in Australia, and hosted by Queensland University of Technology, the following statement was developed and has the endorsement of over sixty participants. Brisbane Declaration Preamble The participants recognise Open Access as a strategic enabling activity, on which research and inquiry will rely at international, national, university, group and individual levels. Strategies Therefore the participants resolve the following as a summary of the basic strategies that Australia must adopt: 1 Every citizen should have free open access to publicly funded research, data and knowledge. 2 Every Australian university should have access to a digital repository to store its research outputs for this purpose. 3 As a minimum, this repository should contain all materials reported in the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC). 4 The deposit of materials should take place as soon as possible, and in the case of published research articles should be of the author's final draft at the time of acceptance so as to maximize open access to the material. Brisbane, September, 2008
Re: Call for a vote of nonconfidence in the moderator of the AmSci Forum
I've every confidence in Steven's ability to moderate here, in his energy, enthusiasm and contribution to the cause. We have a lot to be grateful for. Reading this thread, it does seem that editorial-style annotations on postings are better handled separately. Spam-filtering, editorialising, and leading/steering of discussions are separable tasks. Excerpting, summarising and commenting on posts would perhaps work better in a blog, rather than as part of the function of email filtering/forwarding. Moving such activities to a blog could also serve to better spread ideas and discussion beyond the confines of this list. If a more collective voice is preferred, it wouldn't be too hard to set up a Planet blog aggregator that included posts from any list participants. cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Cross-Posting and Quote/Commentary
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Dan Brickley dan...@danbri.org wrote: I've every confidence in Steven's ability to moderate here, in his energy, enthusiasm and contribution to the cause. We have a lot to be grateful for. Reading this thread, it does seem that editorial-style annotations on postings are better handled separately. Spam-filtering, editorialising, and leading/steering of discussions are separable tasks. Excerpting, summarising and commenting on posts would perhaps work better in a blog, rather than as part of the function of email filtering/forwarding. I appreciate the vote of confidence as well as the suggestion, butlet me clarify two important points. I hope this will help resolve some misunderstandings: (1) My role as moderator, filtering out spam, off-topic discussion and ad-hominem postings to the AmSci Forum is *completely independent* of my role as poster to the AmSci and the other Fora in which I post text of my own and quote/comment other postings. The two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. As a poster, I have the same rights as any other poster: to post on-topic, non-ad-hominem text, including quote/commentary and summaries. These postings are not made, or portrayed, or intended to have any special authority (other than what their own substance may win them) simply because I also happen to be the moderator of the AmSci Forum. Except when specifically tagged as Moderator's Note (usually when I am making an announcement or invoking cloture on a topic that has become too repetitive), my postings are simply postings, like any other postings. (2) When I do quote/commentary on AmSci Forum postings, those are *always* postings that have first appeared in full in the Forum. It is simply not the case that I quote/comment AmSci postings without first letting them appear in full on AmSci. However, I do sometimes do *cross-postings* of quote/commentary on postings that have appeared in full on *other* lists (such as SOAF, liblicense, JISC-REPOSITORIES or SIGMET). I think it is those cross-postings that have given some readers the erroneous impression that I sometimes do quote/commentary without first posting the full text on AmSci: I do, but never on *AmSci* postings. When I cross-post, I do so because I feel that my quote/commentary is relevant to AmSci, self-contained, and does not require having seen the full text I am critiquing in order to be fully understood the quote/commentary. However, it is always possible to go to the original list and read the original full-text posting, if a reader is interested. It is also possible to skip quote/commentaries, if one is not interested in them. I have been doing these quote/commentaries since the very beginning of the Forum, in 1998 (and much earlier, on other lists). Moreover, it is my belief that quote/commentary is an important new form of scholarly/scientific discourse, and will come into its own after OA itself has first come into its own. I appreciate the votes of confidence in my role as moderator, but the recommendations about my quote/commentaries are not relevant to the role of moderator. I quote/comment on other lists in *exactly* the same way I do in the AmSci Forum. Those quote/commentaries will have to be weighed on their own merits; they have nothing to do with the question of moderatorship. If someone has incorrectly inferred that my quote/commentaries on the AmSci Forum have some especial editorial force or function, this is simply an error. They do not. They stand or fall on their own intrinsic substance and have no ex officio status at all. Moving such activities to a blog could also serve to better spread ideas and discussion beyond the confines of this list. If a more collective voice is preferred, it wouldn't be too hard to set up a Planet blog aggregator that included posts from any list participants. I do have a blog, Open Access Archivangelism,http://openaccess.eprints.org/ and I do cross-post some of my AmSci postings there and vice versa, but blogs are better suited for straight postings (editorializing) and not for the interactive quote/commentary that is the (potential) power of discussion fora. Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in Current Contents 45: 9-13, November 11 1991). http://cogprints.org/1581/ Harnad, S. (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for Electronic Publishing, pp. 58 - 61. http://cogprints.org/1688/ Harnad, S. (1995) Interactive Cognition: Exploring the Potential of Electronic Quote/Commenting. In: B. Gorayska J.L. Mey (Eds.) Cognitive Technology: In Search of a Humane Interface. Elsevier. Pp. 397-414. http://cogprints.org/1599/ Harnad, S. (2003/2004) Back to the Oral Tradition Through Skywriting at the Speed of
