Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit?

[Jeffery, KG (Keith)]

All -
 
and are in pdf which is an awful format for any re-purposing.
 
Also, well-organised institutional repositories are connected to a
CRIS (Current Research Information System) which (assuming it uses
CERIF - Common Research Information Format - an EU recommendation to
member states) provides contextual (meta)data on such things as
persons, organisational units (groups, departments), projects,
funding, facilities and equipment used, patents, products (including
research datasets and software), publications, events - i.e. the
research 'space' associated with the publication.  More information
at www.eurocris.org/cerif
 
Of course all of this information is needed attached to the
publication for most re-purposing and also for research evaluation.
 
Keith
 

--
Prof Keith G Jeffery   E: keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk
Director Information Technology & International Strategy
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory  
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Didcot, OXON  OX11  0QX   UK
T: +44 1235 44 6103  F:+44 1235 44 5147     
   
President ERCIM & STFC Director: http://www.ercim.org/
W3C Office at STFC-RAL   http://www.w3.org/ 
President euroCRIS    http://www.eurocris.org/
VLDB Trustee Emeritus: http://www.vldb.org/
EDBT Board 
Memberhttp://www.edbt.org/
   
--

The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the
intended recipient only.  If you are not one of the intended
recipients do not take action on it or show it to anyone else, but
return this email to the sender and delete your copy of it

The STFC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance
with the policy available from
.


--
Please note that from 20081006 all my email will be sent out from
stfc in the format above.  However, incoming email using other email
addresses for me will work for the forseeable future.  Nonetheless,
you are advised to change any address book entries or typed 'to'
email addresses to the new address provided above.


---

 


From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Morag Greig
Sent: 02 June 2009 16:45
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository
deposit?

Because the copies on Elsevier's website are NOT freely
accessible.
 
Morag

Morag Greig
Advocacy Manager (Enlighten)

Direct line: +44(0)141 330 6797
Fax: +44(0)141 330 4952
E-mail: m.gr...@lib.gla.ac.uk

Library
University of Glasgow
Hillhead Street
Glasgow G12 8QE

www.lib.gla.ac.uk  

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On
Behalf Of Sally Morris
Sent: 02 June 2009 15:36
To:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository
deposit?

  Let me be heretical here

   

  In this interconnected environment, why does it
  matter where the freely accessible version is?

   

  Sally

   

   

  Sally Morris

   

  South House, The Street

  Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

   

  Tel: +44(0)1903 871286

  Fax: +44(0)8701 202806

  Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk





From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 02 June 2009 14:32
To:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository
deposit?

 

On 2-Jun-09, at 8:05 AM, Peter Suber wrote:



[Forwarding from Fred Friend via the JISC-Repositories
list.  --Peter Suber.]

To all repository managers:
 
Rumours are spreading that Elsevier staff are approaching
UK Vice-Chancellors persuading them to point to PDF
copies of articles on Elsevier's web-site rather than
have the articles deposited in institutional
repositories. It appears that the argument being used is
that this will be a cheaper option than maintaining
ful

Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit?

[Morag Greig]

Because the copies on Elsevier's website are NOT freely accessible.
 
Morag

Morag Greig
Advocacy Manager (Enlighten)

Direct line: +44(0)141 330 6797
Fax: +44(0)141 330 4952
E-mail: m.gr...@lib.gla.ac.uk

Library
University of Glasgow
Hillhead Street
Glasgow G12 8QE

www.lib.gla.ac.uk  

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
-Original Message-
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On
Behalf Of Sally Morris
Sent: 02 June 2009 15:36
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository
deposit?

  Let me be heretical here

   

  In this interconnected environment, why does it matter
  where the freely accessible version is?

   

  Sally

   

   

  Sally Morris

   

  South House, The Street

  Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

   

  Tel: +44(0)1903 871286

  Fax: +44(0)8701 202806

  Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk





From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 02 June 2009 14:32
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository
deposit?

 

On 2-Jun-09, at 8:05 AM, Peter Suber wrote:



[Forwarding from Fred Friend via the JISC-Repositories list. 
--Peter Suber.]

To all repository managers:
 
Rumours are spreading that Elsevier staff are approaching UK
Vice-Chancellors persuading them to point to PDF copies of
articles on Elsevier's web-site rather than have the articles
deposited in institutional repositories. It appears that the
argument being used is that this will be a cheaper option than
maintaining full-text within repositories. If these reports are
true, my guess is that Elsevier are using these arguments to
undermine deposit mandates.

 

Here is my prediction:

 

  (1) Yes, Elsevier and other publishers would be
  happier if researchers did not deposit their final
  drafts in their institutional repositories, and if
  their institutions and funders did not mandate that
  they do so. Hence it is not at all surprising that
  they may be trying to persuade UK VCs to link to
  PDFs at Elsevier's website instead of having their
  researchers deposit their own final drafts in their
  own institutional repositories.

  (2) But UK VCs presumably still have some autonomy
  and judgement of their own. So whereas they will
  understand why it might be in publishers' interest
  if universities' research output were held at
  publishers' websites rather than in the
  university's own repository, they will also see
  quite clearly why this would not be in the interest
  of their universities, or their researchers, or
  research assessment, or research itself. 

   

  (3) So the attempt at persuasion will prove
  unpersuasive.

 

So please let us not again stir up groundless and distracting
anxieties about this. Let publishers try to persuade whomever
they wish of whatever they wish. The interested parties will
make their own decisions, according to their own interests.

 

What UK VCs should be (and are) doing is persuading their own
researchers to provide Open Access to their own research
output, in their own repositories, by adopting university Open
Access self-archiving mandates, as 83 institutions and funders
worldwide have already done. UK has the world's highest
concentration of these mandates, and two more are about to be
announced (stay tuned).

 

Elsevier (and the majority of other publishers), despite their
efforts at VC persuasion, and despite the familiar doomsday
scenarios to the contrary, remain on the side of the
angels insofar as OA self-archiving is concerned, endorsing
authors depositing their final drafts in their institutional
repositories.

 

Let us concentrate on accelerating OA mandate adoption and not
worry about how publishers might be trying to decelerate it:
The outcome is optimal (for research, researchers, their
institutions, and the tax-paying public that funds them) -- and
inevitable.

 

  If Vice-Chancellors are persuaded to adopt this
  policy, it would only give repository access to an
  unsatisfactory version (PDFs will not enable re-use
  for research purposes) and access on Elsevier's
  terms. If this is Elsevier's strategy it would seem
  to negate their "green" status. Previous
  correspondence on this list has indicated a harder
  line on repository deposit by Wiley-Blackwell, and
  if Elsevier are also hardening their policy,
  mandates for repository deposit could lose much of
  their potential effectiven

Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit?

[Sally Morris]

Let me be heretical here

 

In this interconnected environment, why does it matter where the
freely accessible version is?

 

Sally

 

 

Sally Morris

 

South House, The Street

Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

 

Tel: +44(0)1903 871286

Fax: +44(0)8701 202806

Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk





From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 02 June 2009 14:32
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit?

 

On 2-Jun-09, at 8:05 AM, Peter Suber wrote:



[Forwarding from Fred Friend via the JISC-Repositories list.  --Peter
Suber.]

To all repository managers:
 
Rumours are spreading that Elsevier staff are approaching UK
Vice-Chancellors persuading them to point to PDF copies of articles
on Elsevier's web-site rather than have the articles deposited in
institutional repositories. It appears that the argument being used
is that this will be a cheaper option than maintaining full-text
within repositories. If these reports are true, my guess is that
Elsevier are using these arguments to undermine deposit mandates.

 

Here is my prediction:

 

  (1) Yes, Elsevier and other publishers would be happier
  if researchers did not deposit their final drafts in
  their institutional repositories, and if their
  institutions and funders did not mandate that they do so.
  Hence it is not at all surprising that they may be trying
  to persuade UK VCs to link to PDFs at Elsevier's website
  instead of having their researchers deposit their own
  final drafts in their own institutional repositories.

  (2) But UK VCs presumably still have some autonomy and
  judgement of their own. So whereas they will understand
  why it might be in publishers' interest if universities'
  research output were held at publishers' websites rather
  than in the university's own repository, they will also
  see quite clearly why this would not be in the interest
  of their universities, or their researchers, or research
  assessment, or research itself. 

   

  (3) So the attempt at persuasion will prove unpersuasive.

 

So please let us not again stir up groundless and distracting
anxieties about this. Let publishers try to persuade whomever they
wish of whatever they wish. The interested parties will make their
own decisions, according to their own interests.

 

What UK VCs should be (and are) doing is persuading their own
researchers to provide Open Access to their own research output, in
their own repositories, by adopting university Open Access
self-archiving mandates, as 83 institutions and funders worldwide
have already done. UK has the world's highest concentration of these
mandates, and two more are about to be announced (stay tuned).

 

Elsevier (and the majority of other publishers), despite their
efforts at VC persuasion, and despite the familiar doomsday
scenarios to the contrary, remain on the side of the angels insofar
as OA self-archiving is concerned, endorsing authors depositing their
final drafts in their institutional repositories.

 

Let us concentrate on accelerating OA mandate adoption and not worry
about how publishers might be trying to decelerate it: The outcome is
optimal (for research, researchers, their institutions, and the
tax-paying public that funds them) -- and inevitable.

 

  If Vice-Chancellors are persuaded to adopt this policy,
  it would only give repository access to an unsatisfactory
  version (PDFs will not enable re-use for research
  purposes) and access on Elsevier's terms. If this is
  Elsevier's strategy it would seem to negate their "green"
  status. Previous correspondence on this list has
  indicated a harder line on repository deposit by
  Wiley-Blackwell, and if Elsevier are also hardening their
  policy, mandates for repository deposit could lose much
  of their potential effectiveness in increasing access to
  research content.

 

There is no hardening of policies, the PDF issue is a red herring,
and green continues to be green. 

 

  It would be wise for repository managers to brief their
  senior university management on this issue. The threat to
  repository deposit also adds to the need for authors to
  be briefed on the use of a licence to publish retaining
  certain rights rather than ceding all control over their
  work to the publisher.

 

There is no threat to repository deposit; a green light to deposit
a postprint is sufficient for green OA and green OA mandates,
irrespective of whether the postprint is the author's final draft or
the publisher's PDF. 

 

  Any publishers reading this message should understand
  that dialogue on the issues

Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit?

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Sally Morris  wrote:

  Let me be heretical here 

  In this interconnected environment, why does it matter
  where the freely accessible version is?

Glad you asked:

It would make no difference whatsoever if all the 2.5 million yearly
articles in all 25,000 peer-reviewed journals were freely accessible
online, immediately upon acceptance for publication, one way or the
other.
(Google would quickly develop the optimal tool for targeted search
and access).

But the trouble is that 85% of those articles are not freely
accessible online, either in the author's institutional repository or
on the publisher's website.

And that's what Green OA self-archiving mandates by research
institutions and funders are about, and for.

Institutions and funders cannot mandate that publishers make their
articles OA on their website (or anywhere). But they can mandate that
their employees and fundees do so, on their own institutional
websites. And that is what they are doing, and why.

Moreover, institutions have other reasons for wanting to archive and
showcase their own institutional research output, in their own
institutional repositories.

So, yes, it makes no difference where the freely accessible articles
are located on the distributed web, insofar as search and retrieval
is concerned. But it makes every difference for getting them all to
be made freely accessible in the first place.

Stevan Harnad

 

  From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
  [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]
  On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad

Sent: 02 June 2009 14:32
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository
deposit?

 

On 2-Jun-09, at 8:05 AM, Peter Suber wrote:



[Forwarding from Fred Friend via the JISC-Repositories list. 
--Peter Suber.]

To all repository managers:
 
Rumours are spreading that Elsevier staff are approaching UK
Vice-Chancellors persuading them to point to PDF copies of
articles on Elsevier's web-site rather than have the articles
deposited in institutional repositories. It appears that the
argument being used is that this will be a cheaper option than
maintaining full-text within repositories. If these reports are
true, my guess is that Elsevier are using these arguments to
undermine deposit mandates.

 

Here is my prediction:

 

  (1) Yes, Elsevier and other publishers would be
  happier if researchers did not deposit their final
  drafts in their institutional repositories, and if
  their institutions and funders did not mandate that
  they do so. Hence it is not at all surprising that
  they may be trying to persuade UK VCs to link to
  PDFs at Elsevier's website instead of having their
  researchers deposit their own final drafts in their
  own institutional repositories.

  (2) But UK VCs presumably still have some autonomy
  and judgement of their own. So whereas they will
  understand why it might be in publishers' interest
  if universities' research output were held at
  publishers' websites rather than in the
  university's own repository, they will also see
  quite clearly why this would not be in the interest
  of their universities, or their researchers, or
  research assessment, or research itself. 

   

  (3) So the attempt at persuasion will prove
  unpersuasive.

 

So please let us not again stir up groundless and distracting
anxieties about this. Let publishers try to persuade whomever
they wish of whatever they wish. The interested parties will
make their own decisions, according to their own interests.

 

What UK VCs should be (and are) doing is persuading their own
researchers to provide Open Access to their own research
output, in their own repositories, by adopting university Open
Access self-archiving mandates, as 83 institutions and funders
worldwide have already done. UK has the world's highest
concentration of these mandates, and two more are about to be
announced (stay tuned).

 

Elsevier (and the majority of other publishers), despite their
efforts at VC persuasion, and despite the familiar doomsday
scenarios to the contrary, remain on the side of the
angels insofar as OA self-archiving is concerned, endorsing
authors depositing their final drafts in their institutional
repositories.

 

Let us concentrate on accelerating OA mandate adoption and not
worry about how publishers might be trying to decelerate it:
The outcome is optimal (for research, researchers, their
institutions, and the tax-paying public that funds them) -- and
inevitable.

 

  If Vice-Chancellors are persuaded to adopt this
  policy, it would only give repository access to an
  unsatisfactory version (PDFs will not enable re-use
  for research purposes) and access on Elsevier's
  terms. If this is Elsevier's strategy it would seem
  to negate their "g

Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit?

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2-Jun-09, at 8:05 AM, Peter Suber wrote:

  [Forwarding from Fred Friend via the JISC-Repositories
  list.  --Peter Suber.]

  To all repository managers:
   
  Rumours are spreading that Elsevier staff are approaching
  UK Vice-Chancellors persuading them to point to PDF
  copies of articles on Elsevier's web-site rather than
  have the articles deposited in institutional
  repositories. It appears that the argument being used is
  that this will be a cheaper option than maintaining
  full-text within repositories. If these reports are true,
  my guess is that Elsevier are using these arguments to
  undermine deposit mandates.


Here is my prediction:

  (1) Yes, Elsevier and other publishers would be happier
  if researchers did not deposit their final drafts in
  their institutional repositories, and if their
  institutions and funders did not mandate that they do so.
  Hence it is not at all surprising that they may be trying
  to persuade UK VCs to link to PDFs at Elsevier's website
  instead of having their researchers deposit their own
  final drafts in their own institutional repositories.

  (2) But UK VCs presumably still have some autonomy and
  judgement of their own. So whereas they will understand
  why it might be in publishers' interest if universities'
  research output were held at publishers' websites rather
  than in the university's own repository, they will also
  see quite clearly why this would not be in the interest
  of their universities, or their researchers, or research
  assessment, or research itself. 


  (3) So the attempt at persuasion will prove unpersuasive.


So please let us not again stir up groundless and distracting
anxieties about this. Let publishers try to persuade whomever they
wish of whatever they wish. The interested parties will make their
own decisions, according to their own interests.

What UK VCs should be (and are) doing is persuading their own
researchers to provide Open Access to their own research output, in
their own repositories, by adopting university Open Access
self-archiving mandates, as 83 institutions and funders worldwide
have already done. UK has the world's highest concentration of these
mandates, and two more are about to be announced (stay tuned).

Elsevier (and the majority of other publishers), despite their
efforts at VC persuasion, and despite the familiar doomsday
scenarios to the contrary, remain on the side of the angels insofar
as OA self-archiving is concerned, endorsing authors depositing their
final drafts in their institutional repositories.

Let us concentrate on accelerating OA mandate adoption and not worry
about how publishers might be trying to decelerate it: The outcome is
optimal (for research, researchers, their institutions, and the
tax-paying public that funds them) -- and inevitable.

  If Vice-Chancellors are persuaded to adopt this policy,
  it would only give repository access to an unsatisfactory
  version (PDFs will not enable re-use for research
  purposes) and access on Elsevier's terms. If this is
  Elsevier's strategy it would seem to negate their "green"
  status. Previous correspondence on this list has
  indicated a harder line on repository deposit by
  Wiley-Blackwell, and if Elsevier are also hardening their
  policy, mandates for repository deposit could lose much
  of their potential effectiveness in increasing access to
  research content.


There is no hardening of policies, the PDF issue is a red herring,
and green continues to be green. 
 
  It would be wise for repository managers to brief their
  senior university management on this issue. The threat to
  repository deposit also adds to the need for authors to
  be briefed on the use of a licence to publish retaining
  certain rights rather than ceding all control over their
  work to the publisher.


There is no threat to repository deposit; a green light to deposit
a postprint is sufficient for green OA and green OA mandates,
irrespective of whether the postprint is the author's final draft or
the publisher's PDF. 
 
  Any publishers reading this message should understand
  that dialogue on the issues above will be welcome, in
  particular clarification of any change in publisher
  policies. 


What is needed is not (still more!) dialogue with publishers but
self-archiving of postprints by the researchers -- and postprint
self-archiving mandates by researchers' institutions and funders.

Repository managers do far more for OA if they focus on helping their
institution to adopt self-archiving policies rather than if they
focus on how publisher may be trying to maximise their interests by
delaying or distracting from them.

Stevan Harnad
 
  Fred Friend (not writing on behalf of any organisation or
  institution)  

Fwd: Creative repositories and the arts: KULTUR project press release

[Stevan Harnad]

[ The following text is in the "windows-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set.  ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]


Begin forwarded message:

  From: Leslie Carr 
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: June 2, 2009 4:45:31 AM EDT (CA)
To: JISC-REPOSITORIES -- JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Creative repositories and the arts: KULTUR project
press release

A repository which will make it possible for colleges and
individuals in the arts to store and present their work in a
creative way will be unveiled tomorrow (Wednesday 3 June).

Kultur, a project that is funded by the Joint Information
Systems Committee (JISC) and that uses the world-leading
EPrints software from the University of Southampton, has
developed a joint pilot repository for the University of the
Arts London, the University for the Creative Arts and
Winchester School of Art at the University of Southampton. The
project will be officially completed tomorrow and an event to
mark the occasion will be held at Whitechapel Art Gallery.
'Up to now, the focus of most repositories has been science and
engineering and published articles,' said Dr Leslie Carr,
Technical Director of EPrints, based at the University of
Southampton?s School of Electronics and Computer Science.
'Kultur has provided us with an opportunity to use EPrints to
develop the first comprehensive institutional repository for
the arts.'

The Kultur project provides a flexible, multimedia pilot
repository capable of showcasing a wide range of outputs from
digital versions of paintings, photography, film, graphic and
textile design to records of performances, shows and
installations.

The three institutions involved will now develop their own open
repositories to store and showcase their creative work.

'This will make an immense difference to our institutions,'
said Andrew Gray, Kultur Project Officer, University of the
Arts. 'It is the first repository of its kind in the arts
world; there are others but there hasn't been a visual one. The
benefit of Kultur is that it will enable us to share our
practice-based research across our colleges and with other
institutions.'

'It will also open up the art world, which will link up the
often lone artist with the wider arts community,' Dr Carr
added.

The pilot repository will be showcased at Whitechapel Art
Gallery between 6-8pm tomorrow. The event will include
presentations from Andy McGregor, JISC, Seymour Roworth-Stokes,
Pro Vice Chancellor of Research at University for the Creative
Arts, Andrew Carnie, Researcher at Winchester School of Art,
University of Southampton and Pat Christie, Director of Library
and Learning Resources, University of the Arts.

Kultur was collaboration between all three institutions listed
in partnership with the Visual Arts Data Service and EPrints.
EPrints software developed in 2000 by the University of
Southampton?s School of Electronics and Computer Science is
used in hundreds of institutional repositories (IRs) around the
world.

For information about Kultur, please
visit:http://kultur.eprints.org/.
== END ==
(also posted to http://eprintsnews.blogspot.com/)

Fwd: EPrints working with Sun's Cloud Storage Service

[Stevan Harnad]

Begin forwarded message:

  From: Leslie Carr 
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: June 2, 2009 4:55:14 AM EDT (CA)
To: JISC-REPOSITORIES -- JISCMAIL.AC.UK

[Cross-posted to the EPrints Tech mailing list and the EPrints
News blog at http://eprintsnews.blogspot.com/ .]

As part of Sun Microsystem's Preservation Archiving Special
Interest Group (PASIG), the EPrints team have been
collaborating with Sun to enable EPrints to be used with
archival storage products, such as the Honeycomb (STK-5800).

This collaboration has informed the development of the new
EPrints 3.2 Storage Controller that enables the repository to
distribute its objects between many storage platforms according
to the rules laid down in an XML policy language. Hybrid
storage provides the maximum flexibility for storage decisions
based on object properties and related metadata, allowing
multiple copies to be managed across local, archival and cloud
storage services.

We are pleased to announce that we have been working
collaboratively with Sun's Cloud Computing Unit to allow the
EPrints Storage Controller to link to the forthcoming Sun Cloud
Storage Service (due for release later this year). A
demonstration is available at this week's Community One
conference in San Francisco
(http://developers.sun.com/events/communityone/2009/west/index.jsp).
EPrints is one of a few software products to have gained an
entry in the early adopters catalog (available at the
conference).

With an Amazon S3 plugin already available for the EPrints
Storage controller, Sun's Cloud Storage Service is a logical
next step in terms of cloud providers. EPrints is also
committed to supporting the DuraSpace proposed DuraCloud
service, and hopes to release a connector for the Microsoft
Azure platform.
--
Les Carr