Re: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed Articles - but it gets much much better...
Stevan: would it be helpful to have a 'hall of shame' where titles of journals that do not allow self-archiving are 'outed'?? Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] on behalf of Peter Millington [peter.milling...@nottingham.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 3:59 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed Articles - but it gets much much better... *** Apologies for cross posting *** New charts published on the SHERPA/RoMEO Blog show that 87% of journals allow some form of immediate self-archiving of articles, although in only 60% of cases is this a post-peer-reviewed version. http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/?p=196 This rises impressively once embargo periods have expired and any other restrictions have been complied with, showing that 94% of journals permit peer-reviewed articles to be archived. Furthermore, nearly a quarter of journals allow the publisher's version/PDF to be archived. Only 5% of journals do not permit any form of archiving. The statistics were compiled from a snapshot of the RoMEO Journals database taken on the 15th Nov.2011, when it contained about 19,000 titles. Peter Millington SHERPA Technical Development Officer Centre for Research Communications Greenfield Medical Library, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, England This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
EPrints REF2014 plugin
*Apologies for cross-posting*  The newly-developed REF2014 plugin for the widely-used EPrints repository software is entering its live testing phase. Five universities that currently have their repositories hosted by EPrints Services will be participating in the testing process. The goal is to release the REF2014 plugin next February and it will be available free of charge.  On behalf of EPrints Services, Sheridan Brown said The development of this new plugin demonstrates the team's continuing desire to add value to the core EPrints software in response to the needs of the user community. The plugin provides the functionality that repositories need to comply with requirements of the UK's Research Excellence Framework exercise. It has been developed for a UK-specific purpose, but it reflects the flexibility of the EPrints software and the readiness of the development team to continue to strive to make repositories a valuable strategic tool for institutions, says Sheridan. Further information about the REF2014 plugin can be found here: http://www.eprints.org/ref2014/
Re: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed Articles - but it gets much much better...
Dana Be careful what you ask for. A list of the ~5% of journals that do not allow any form of open access archiving whatsoever would contain getting on for 1,000 titles. I think that a list of such a size would lose its impact. Please note that SHERPA/RoMEO is conservative when assigning colours. An unclear permission is treated as a cannot. Consequently that 5% of journals is a blend of titles where archiving is definitely verboten - deep white if you will - and titles where the situation is unclear - off white. When RoMEO eventually manages to get definitive information from the off white publishers, their colours might well change, and that could go either way. Slightly more than half of the 5% are deep white, which yields a Hall of shame of about 500 titles - still quite large. A better approach might be to list the publishers of the white journals. This would list about 200 publishers, of which about 130 have deep white titles. RoMEO's main concern is to ensure that the policy information in its database is accurate and complete - whether a publisher supports open access or opposes it. A hall of shame would probably have no effect on the publishers who are deep white, but under a different title it might encourage the off white publishers to provide us with the clarification we require. Indeed there are many publishers that we have not been able to add to RoMEO due to the unavailability of policy information. However, we are soon going to be moving some of the unclear policies from our suggestions list into RoMEO, flagged as provisional, in the hope that this may encourage the relevant publishers to answer our requests for information. Peter Millington SHERPA Services Centre for Research Communication University of Nottingham -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Dana Roth Sent: 25 November 2011 04:48 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed Articles - but it gets much much better... Stevan: would it be helpful to have a 'hall of shame' where titles of journals that do not allow self-archiving are 'outed'?? Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] on behalf of Peter Millington [peter.milling...@nottingham.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 3:59 AM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed Articles - but it gets much much better... *** Apologies for cross posting *** New charts published on the SHERPA/RoMEO Blog show that 87% of journals allow some form of immediate self-archiving of articles, although in only 60% of cases is this a post-peer-reviewed version. http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/?p=196 This rises impressively once embargo periods have expired and any other restrictions have been complied with, showing that 94% of journals permit peer-reviewed articles to be archived. Furthermore, nearly a quarter of journals allow the publisher's version/PDF to be archived. Only 5% of journals do not permit any form of archiving. The statistics were compiled from a snapshot of the RoMEO Journals database taken on the 15th Nov.2011, when it contained about 19,000 titles. Peter Millington SHERPA Technical Development Officer Centre for Research Communications Greenfield Medical Library, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, England This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
Signing off
Hello Stevan, Just a farewell note. I'm finally leaving the AmSci Forum list because I have grown so tired of watching you ride your own particular hobbyhorse that I simply have to leave the room. Below is the message that was the last straw. You made it crisply clear, for the nth time, that you not only have no interest in fairness arguments having to do with making science open and transparent, you also refuse to listen to them and in every case reflexively urge others to shut their mouths and ears. Such arguments are, to me, as compelling as any argument based on access for researchers. Furthermore, you well know that the traditional publishing system is subsidized to give scholars access (through libraries). The leg you attempt to stand on is a fine argument for library funding and even more liberal policies of library access but truly fails as a sufficient argument for open access online. (And books--what a red herring! You well know that secondary literature--books, magazines, TV programs etc.--is not primary research output. It is not generally what the taxpayer funds. I believe the term for a supposedly logical argument that relies on irrelevant facts is specious.) I work now at an institution where investigators have access to more or less anything they want. Those faculty who are participating in the Harvard repository are not, as far as I know, doing so for Harnad reasons. I urge you to respect the motivational power and the principles of those who advocate true open access and even real reform that embraces principles of social responsibility. But others have urged you to, and so I have no illusion that you will ever move your tent to be with the other occupiers of science publishing. There are many voices on the list that I will miss. Your shrill one I will not. I believe that I was the very first subscriber to the list so long ago. I thought you deserved a farewell, and perhaps I wanted to finally, albeit privately, get a word in. There would have been no point in saying these things on the list; I have no real standing in this matter as you see it, not being a researcher myself, and you would simply have snapped back with your usual arguments. Too bad. Ros Begin forwarded message: From: Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com Date: November 22, 2011 9:06:47 PM EST To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Double-Pay Double-Talk: Not a good justification for Open Access Reply-To: American Scientist Open Access Forum american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Michael Eisen mbei...@gmail.com wrote: Under the current model members of the public who want to access a paper are paying for THE PAPER twice. They are heavily subsidizing the subscriptions that pay for journals - providing far more than the cost of publishing through indirect costs and other means. And then they're paying again to access the article themselves. I wish it were that simple, Mike, but it's not. On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Stevan Harnad wrote: Are tax-payers paying twice when universities pay to buy for their users books based on tax-payer funded scholarly and scientific research? If not, then tax-payers are not paying twice when universities pay to buy journal subscriptions for their users either. (Whereas if so, then Open Access is up against a far, far bigger obstacle than journal subscription access barriers: They are up against the entire book industry, including both its publishers and its authors. And US research funder mandates cannot and will not change that.) Please let's stick to the fair, real, realistic and unassailable rationale for mandating open access: Research is funded (by the tax payer) and conducted and published (by the researcher) so that its findings can be accessed, used and built upon by its primary intended users (researchers) for the benefit of the tax-payer and research progress.
Re: Signing off AmSci
Dear Rosalind, I'm very sorry you're leaving the AmSci Forum, and especially sorry you're leaving with the feelings you have. I am grateful for your having launched the Forum when you were at AmSci, for selecting me to moderate it, and for all your support througout the many ensuing years; this rather severe criticism from you came as something of a shock to me, but I appreciate your letting me know. Let me just add something factual with which I don't think you will disagree: OA has been stagnating at a flat 15% throughout the dozen years that began with the AmSci Forum. For the sake of OA (which I really believe to be beneficial), I would have been more than happy to use either (1) the public access to publicly funded research argument, (2) the open science/transparency argument, (3) the double-pay argument for Gold OA (even though I happen to think all three are specious) if any had actually induced researchers to provide OA. But none has done so to any detectable extent. And that's why six years ago the Forum's focus was changed to focus on concrete, practical OA policy-making. By then all ideological considerations had already been aired many times over. My hobby horse is indeed OA mandates for the sake of research access, and there are very few of those as yet either. But, when adopted, the mandates really do work. If mine's the wrong hobby horse, then I will have squandered a dozen years for naught, and something else will eventually induce researchers to provide OA (or maybe OA was never destined to happen). But it's by now certain that neither (1)  the public access to publicly funded research argument nor (2) open science/transparency argument, nor (3) the library's double-pay argument (which is even older than OA and has been aired by librarians time and time again in their struggles with the serials affordability crisis) has been any more successful to date than my hobby horse in actually inducing researchers to provide OA. Nor is there any way to translate any of the arguments into practical action -- other than mandates. You note that you believe the real reason why the (few) institutions that have adopted mandates to date was either (1), (2), or (3) or some combination (perhaps including researcher access too). You may be right. Or maybe banging on relentlessly about making research accessible to its intended users (researchers) in order to maximize research uptake, impact and progress, and, in turn, for the benefits of research progress to the public (and the eventual easing of the library's serials burden) might eventually turn out to have been the effective rationale after all. And perhaps that could only be appreciated and acted upon globally once the alternative ideological rationales had proven themselves to be insufficient, ineffectual or incoherent. Either way, you have my unending gratitude for your help across all these years, Best wishes, Stevan PS There are many scientific and scholarly monographs that report research, and sometimes in ways that are more accessible to the lay public (i.e., more comprehensible) than refereed journal articles. But there's no way currently to mandate making those books OA if their authors and publishers don't want to do it. As to open science/transparency:  since all research is published, it's hardly being kept a secret! What's missing (even for Harvard scientists and scholars) is researcher access to all refereed journal articles (and, no, even Harvard cannot afford paid access to all journals). As it happens, if you mandate OA for the sake of researcher access, public openness automatically comes with the territory. So the real question is: What will induce researchers to provide it at long last? You set a lot of store by openness/transparency as the inducement. I hope that one of us, at least, eventually turns out to be right, and that it won't be another 12 years before it comes to pass On 2011-11-25, at 8:45 AM, Rosalind Reid wrote: Hello Stevan, Just a farewell note. I'm finally leaving the AmSci Forum list because I have grown so tired of watching you ride your own particular hobbyhorse that I simply have to leave the room. Below is the message that was the last straw. You made it crisply clear, for the nth time, that you not only have no interest in fairness arguments having to do with making science open and transparent, you also refuse to listen to them and in every case reflexively urge others to shut their mouths and ears. Such arguments are, to me, as compelling as any argument based on access for researchers. Furthermore, you well know that the traditional publishing system is subsidized to give scholars access (through libraries). The leg you attempt to stand on is a fine argument for library funding and even more liberal policies of library access but truly fails as a sufficient argument for open access
Re: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed Articles - but it gets much much better...
Dana Roth asked:  Stevan: would it be helpful to have a 'hall of shame' where titles of journals that do not allow self-archiving are 'outed'?? Dana, (1) I agree completely with Peter Millington (below), that SHERPA/Romeo already implicitly contains the hall of shame (consisting of those journals/publishers who do not endorse unembargoed OA self-archiving at all) and that there is hence no reason to generate another one (especially since there are so many journals/publishers in it). The simple, self-explanatory color code for the shame category is non-green. (2) I also agree that there should be a special category for journals/publishers who endorse the unembargoed OA self-archiving of the unrefereed preprint, even though they do not endorse the unembargoed OA self-archiving of the refereed final draft. The simple, self-explanatory color-code for the preprint-only category should be pale-green. (3) I don't think it's very useful, strategically, however, to give a lot of attention one way or the other to publishers that embargo OA. That information should be noted, of course, but those journals/publishers should not get further credit than that, over the publishers who do not endorse OA self-archiving at all. All journals/publishers that embargo OA should be color-coded as non-green. (4) Still less useful (and even downright counterproductive), I think, is a color-coded distinction between journals/publishers that endorse the unembargoed OA self-archiving of the refereed draft and journals/publishers that endorse the unembargoed OA self-archiving of both the refereed draft and the unrefereed preprint. Both these categories should be color-coded as fully green (not as blue and green, respectively, as now). In other words, the only categories that matter are unembargoed OA self-archiving of the refereed final draft (full-green), unembargoed OA self-archiving of the unrefereed preprint only (pale-green), and neither (non-green). The colors blue and yellow are just obscuring the understanding of green OA. There is no blue OA and there is no yellow OA. Stevan Harnad On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Peter Millington peter.milling...@nottingham.ac.uk wrote: Dana Be careful what you ask for. A list of the ~5% of journals that do not allow any form of open access archiving whatsoever would contain getting on for 1,000 titles. I think that a list of such a size would lose its impact. Please note that SHERPA/RoMEO is conservative when assigning colours. An unclear permission is treated as a cannot. Consequently that 5% of journals is a blend of titles where archiving is definitely verboten - deep white if you will - and titles where the situation is unclear - off white. When RoMEO eventually manages to get definitive information from the off white publishers, their colours might well change, and that could go either way. Slightly more than half of the 5% are deep white, which yields a Hall of shame of about 500 titles - still quite large. A better approach might be to list the publishers of the white journals. This would list about 200 publishers, of which about 130 have deep white titles. RoMEO's main concern is to ensure that the policy information in its database is accurate and complete - whether a publisher supports open access or opposes it. A hall of shame would probably have no effect on the publishers who are deep white, but under a different title it might encourage the off white publishers to provide us with the clarification we require. Indeed there are many publishers that we have not been able to add to RoMEO due to the unavailability of policy information. However, we are soon going to be moving some of the unclear policies from our suggestions list into RoMEO, flagged as provisional, in the hope that this may encourage the relevant publishers to answer our requests for information. Peter Millington SHERPA Services Centre for Research Communication University of Nottingham -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Dana Roth Sent: 25 November 2011 04:48 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: 60% of Journals Allow Immediate Archiving of Peer-Reviewed Articles - but it gets much much better... Stevan: would it be helpful to have a 'hall of shame' where titles of journals that do not allow self-archiving are 'outed'?? Dana L. Roth Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
Stepping down as Moderator of American Scientist Open Access Forum
Dear All, In September 2011 the AmSci Open Access Forum went into its 14th year. I think I have been moderating the Forum long enough, and so I'm stepping down as moderator, effective the end of December. This leaves time for the Forum to decide (1) whether to continue (or the other two OA lists -- SOAF and BOAI -- are sufficient). If the decision is to continue, we will need (2) volunteers or nominees for who is to take over the moderator role and (3) a volunteer to mediate and tall the (offline) voting, if it comes to a vote. Please send your votes to me (offline) on whether the AmSci Forum should continue (1) and if so please (2) volunteer or nominate a new moderator. I will post a compendium of all the votes but I don't want the traffic to drive everyone off the list before its fate is decided! Also, please also let me know (offline) if you would volunteer to (3) mediate and tally the (offline) voting, if it comes to a vote. Best wishes, Stevan
Re: Stepping down as Moderator of American Scientist Open Access Forum
Dear Stevan,  I do hope this is not a result of an unnecessarily rude message from Ros (who she?). No-one of any consequence feels you have outlived your role, which in my opinion has been instrumental in getting the OA message across and patiently clarifying misunderstandings. Truly without this - I am sure, a  sometimes depressing task for you - we wouldn't be where we are. And though I sometimes get cross with you for endlessly quoting the 15% (or is it 20% now), there is no question that OA is not here to stay. Can you imagine unpicking what has been achieved now - all those IRs, all those OA journals, all that clever IR management work . . .? And all this thanks largely to your persistence, and giving the rest of us valuable tutorials with which to help spread the message. I much hope you decide to stay, but if you really want to quit, you can do so with a great achievement behind you, and the grateful thanks of the researchers in the developing world who now have a light at the end of the tunnel.  Take care, Barbara - Original Message - From: Stevan Harnad To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 10:09 PM Subject: Stepping down as Moderator of American Scientist Open Access Forum Dear All, In September 2011 the AmSci Open Access Forum went into its 14th year. I think I have been moderating the Forum long enough, and so I'm stepping down as moderator, effective the end of December. This leaves time for the Forum to decide (1) whether to continue (or the other two OA lists -- SOAF and BOAI -- are sufficient). If the decision is to continue, we will need (2) volunteers or nominees for who is to take over the moderator role and (3) a volunteer to mediate and tall the (offline) voting, if it comes to a vote. Please send your votes to me (offline) on whether the AmSci Forum should continue (1) and if so please (2) volunteer or nominate a new moderator. I will post a compendium of all the votes but I don't want the traffic to drive everyone off the list before its fate is decided! Also, please also let me know (offline) if you would volunteer to (3) mediate and tally the (offline) voting, if it comes to a vote. Best wishes, Stevan
