k>
Best,
Arthur
Dr Arthur Smith
Library REF Manager
Cambridge University Libraries
West Road
Cambridge
CB3 9DR
Email: as2...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:as2...@cam.ac.uk>
Telephone: +44(0)1223 766376
www.openaccess.cam.ac.uk<http://www.openaccess.cam.ac.uk/>
@CamOpenAccess<https:/
tions Open Access. I know many of our colleagues in physics,
astronomy and mathematics will be extremely pleased with this announcement.
Best,
Arthur
Dr Arthur Smith
Deputy Head of Scholarly Communication (Open Access)
Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Ro
l be adding our
latest 2016/17 RCUK report shortly too. Our average APC (including 20% VAT)
is approx. £2000.
Best,
Arthur
Dr Arthur Smith | Open Access Service Manager | <mailto:as2...@cam.ac.uk>
as2...@cam.ac.uk | 01223 766376
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto
I agree with Ross, concluding that Elsevier is a major OA publisher based on
number of journals is misleading, so I thought I’d try to come up with some
figures to address this.
After deconstructing Elsevier’s OA price list
(https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/j.custom97.pdf why this
It seems to me it would make sense for CLOCKSS to provide any deposited
CC-* articles to the public immediately, along with content no longer
available from publishers.
Arthur Smith
On 8/20/12 1:38 PM, Heather Morrison wrote:
> Possible solution?
>
> IF a funding agency were t
There is nothing preventing somebody from charging for a work provided
through a CC-BY or other CC license; however, the first person to
purchase such content then has the right (from the CC license) to
redistribute it freely, so in practice if any publisher tried to charge
it would be self-def
ching. Though perhaps that's what you were implying by "the power of
online boolean search", the need for tracking what has previously been
looked at (whether read or not) needs to be acknowledged.
Arthur Smith
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On 5-Oct-09, at 8:49 PM, Klaus Graf wrote:
>
&
the authors now find embarrassing. Such things often are
revealed in peer review, so if these proceedings were subject to only skimpy
or no review there could easily be such problems. Do these OA proceedings
have any mechanism for authors to add corrections to their articles after
they have been posted?
David Goodman wrote:
>
> The use of arXiv during March 2002 was 2.5 million connections to the
> main http://arXiv.org site, not counting mirror sites. That's a factor
> of 100:1.
> (By no means does everything in arXiv correspond in subject to Phys Rev
> D, but that factor should be compensated f
David Goodman wrote:
> We all know that ongoing measurements
> already show an almost total nonuse of conventional publications, print or
> electronic, in one of the science subject areas.
Our high energy/particle physics journal (Phys. Rev. D) is serving out
10's of thousands of articles/month to
Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> To put it more directly, using software development language to make the
> point: The "developers" of the code that constitutes a refereed research
> paper do not, never did, and never could or would, write the "code" in
> order to sell it, and get fees or royalties from it
David Goodman wrote:
>
> [on my question of why we should want to be simply a contractor to
> universities in assessment of their faculty?]
>
> because, Arthur, the intellectual reputation and respectability of the
> physicists who constitute your society is much greater than any commercial
> --or
Fytton Rowland wrote:
> I entered the scholarly publishing business in 1967 and this problem was
> being debated then -- long before electronic publication!
Thanks for the reminder this isn't a new problem!
> My guess is that, as with other publication
> costs, the costs of copy-editing could be
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> [concerning my speculations on what we would do if our journals no longer
> had any control over "presentation"...]
>
> It's my opinion that in this case Arthur's opinion does not
> represent the APS (Marty?)...
Probably there are many different opinions here - it's not so
In response to Stevan and Andrew, a question for all to consider...:
Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
> > [...] However, that does not preclude less expensive
> > modes of operation, either with lower quality, or with shifting some
> > of the explicit financial c
enses. We do have some hopes that authors can
be persuaded to shape up in a gentler fashion, but it may take a long
time, and may never be complete.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
> []
> Thus George Lundberg wrote:
>
> > The process and product being discussed has existed for aeons in the
> > pre-internet age and continues to fluorish electronically. There is a wide
> > appreciative audience. It is called "Review Article" or "Journalistic
> > Re
Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 Arthur Smith wrote:
>
> > According to Stevan scholarly publishing has no analogue
>
> Incorrect. It is refereed research (journal article) publishing
> that has no analogue.
Ok, substitute "refereed research (journal ar
> MODERATOR'S NOTE: As the topic of the following posting has
> been extensively discussed in this Forum before, it is being
> linked to its original thread, which was:
>
> "Journal Papers vs. Books: The Direct/Indirect Income Trade-off"
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsc
d funding agencies are happy to pay for the creation of
information, but have become more and more reluctant to pay for
organizing that information into useful forms. Why is this? What's
behind it? Is it really true that publishers (such as the Minor Planet
Center) no longer provide any useful value?
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
I'm quite confident now that both free "no-frills" author-controlled
sites (like the arXiv) and standard "frill-filled" peer-reviewed
publishing can coexist, since they serve quite distinct purposes and in
some cases audiences. So no argument from me on Tim's # 2 or #3. But I
think there's a mis
rs - perhaps
the perspective is different in other areas?
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
Peter Suber wrote:
>
> This article from The Chronicle of Higher Education
> (http://chronicle.com) was forwarded to you from: pet...@earlham.edu
> [...]
>
> From the i
Jim Till wrote:
> [...]
> My proposed four main reasons why the primary research literature should
> be freed were, in brief:
>
> (1a) Information gap; (1b) Library crisis; (1c) Public property; and,
> (1d) Academic freedom.
>
> Re (1d): please bear in mind that a definition of the verb "censor" is
David Goodman wrote:
> The publication of material in an free archival system will permit much
> more open and effective review and comment than the present system does.
Permit perhaps - but will it actually happen? So much is published these
days that the vast majority is unlikely to ever receive
Jim Till wrote:
>
> But, what about reasons WHY the primary research literature should be
> freed? Here's my first attempt at a summary of some of the main reasons:
>
> 1. It should be done:
>
> - Information gap: Libraries and researchers in poor countries can't
> afford most of the journal
Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Arthur Smith wrote:
> [...]
> > My
> > belief is that it is important that that responsibility be transferred
> > as far as it can be, from authors to more stable and identifiable
> > entities, so that the end-users
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> [...]
>
> (3) Podkletnov actually has an article published in a high-level
> journal. It reports a cure for cancer (in reality bogus), involving
> drugs that are in reality toxic and do not cure cancer.
> [...]
Actually I think the worst possible case is:
(5) P.
quot;filtering" provided by journals, beyond "refereeing".
And that value is inherently linked to the control and distribution of
the material involved, so S/L/P is a natural funding mechanism - though
we among others hope we'll be able to find new ones.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Do you think the APS estimate is a better average for the 20,000+
> refereed journals and their 2,000,000+ annual articles? (I am not
> asking ironically: I really wonder how representative you think the APS
> bottom line is. We are talking about averages here, after all, and
Ok, I'll admit I've taken the bait...
Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Arthur Smith wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> > Is it perhaps that evaluating according to these criteria is NOT
> > necessarily provided free?
>
> The journal's subject
27;ll all just keep doing what we're doing, and it's always going to
cost about the same, and libraries or institutions or whoever foots the
bill will just have to keep it up. And Open Archives will continue to be
basically irrelevant.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
n
publish papers that cite work published only 1 or 2 months previously.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
our journals (per subscriber) would be perhaps
1/3 or 1/4 what it is now. This would be even more true for journals
with much smaller circulation than ours. Just something to keep in mind
in this debate - your costs would go up, but not 123% if everybody did
it.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
Roger Collins wrote:
> I've been in academia more than 20 years. Over that time it's been my
> impression (and my stats and dataset may be faulty here) that journals
> in numerous fields have cut back on the number of "Comments" to
> articles they publish. This, if correct, has raised two issues in
I've not been keeping track for a while, and for some reason the server
refused to recognize my registered email address. I'm hoping this will
go to the right place...
Stevan's lemma:
>If you think you know an alleged obstacle to public self-archiving
>-- let us call the obstacle "X" [X co
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999 10:52:35 +0100, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
> [...] Self-archiving does
>not require anyone to embark on any new vessels; it leaves current
>journals intact.
Stevan, this statement, that self-archiving leaves journals intact,
is simply not supported by what you say afterwards:
>(Onl
really need to be discussing the future of journals - if
not in this forum then somewhere more hospitable...
Arthur Smith
I think it's only fair to point out that Bloom was not completely negative about
E-biomed in his article - I quote the following from it:
> Science and other journals are eager to identify the advantages of the
> E-biomed proposal and are actively looking for changes that could benefit
> scientif
All these arguments about self-archiving are wonderful, but creating and
maintaining material to be publicly accessible on the web has costs, and
finding appropriate material has costs to the reader, and one
really should be analyzing the total system costs for any scheme, not just
local "costs" fo
On Wed, 12 May 1999 13:10:27 -0400, Thomas J. Walker
wrote:
>I submit that APA
S, not A!!! It's aps.org!
> would be more fiscally responsible and be doing more for
>facilitating the transition from the current user-pays system to a future
>author-pays system by charging for the service of putt
Apologies to Ginsparg and Harnad if I've taken their names in vain
in my classification system. But I think there really is a
sharp distinction between the systems II and III
which Harnad dismisses: under system II (Harnadian)
the literature is clearly always free to readers, because the
journal fu
First an apology to Tom Walker:
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Thomas J. Walker wrote:
> Firstly, if Tom Walker's journal is the Florida Entomologist (for which he
> is the WWW Associate Editor), that journal has yet to charge authors for
> their electronic reprints.
I did misunderstand - sorry about that.
On Fri, 7 May 1999 15:53:43 +0100, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:52:06 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: "Arthur P. Smith"
>>
>> sh> (1) Is the true cost closer to $2000 per article or $200?
>>
>> Well, the true cost (for this specific question, for us) is
>> a matter of calculation, not
On Fri, 7 May 1999 11:51:16 -0400, Thomas J. Walker
wrote:
>Selling electronic reprints, so long as paper publication continues, can be
>quite profitable (and thus fiscally responsible).
Well, I wasn't very clear in my reply on that - sorry. The reason
we can't sell electronic reprints is becau
On Fri, 7 May 1999 13:27:27 +0100, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
> [... discussion of multiple evaluation ...]
>
>So the only way to implement page charges that does not tamper in any
>way with classical peer review is to assess them only for accepted
>papers (factoring in the costs of processing the reje
are to go to a system where the author
pays for peer review (as you have been advocating) I think multiple
evaluations are going to be inevitable one way or another.
Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 05:50:59 -0400, ing...@dds.nl wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Sep 1998 15:29:49 -0400, Arthur Smith wrote:
>
>>Several issues have been brought up on PDF vs SGML. It should be mentioned
>>that PDF is as open as PostScript.
>
>I would personally be in favor of havi
Arthur Smith :
Well, once again I think we've jousted long enough. One wouldn't think
from the tone, but I actually agree with a good part of Stevan's last
post, from which I can distill the following points:
1. We both agree that peer review is essential, and is the centra
uch economic value on money itself, and not enough on
the intangible (sometimes even tangible) benefits authors and others
(yes, even referees) gain from the process. My argument is that without
the publisher, this "added value" would, at least in 99% of cases,
never be created, no matter how much authors and referees thought of
the value of their contributions.
Arthur Smith
On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 05:32:38 -0400, Albert Henderson
wrote:
>My notes from editors' reports published in the Bulletin of the
>American Physical Society indicate the following circulation
>figures for nonmember sales of Physical Review:
> [numbers...]
good - looks like I was only 10% high in my
Arthur Smith :
In another thread I made an assertion about prices which I have now
discovered, at least for our journals (Physical Review) was incorrect.
Going back to 1950, we charged $25/year for a journal of close to 4000
pages - that's $172 in 1998 dollars, or 4.3 cents/page. The per
Finally some real numbers...
Harnad asks also about growth. With doubling every decade,
the number of published articles probably grew
a factor of 10 or more (probably significantly more because
of the rise of the biological sciences) between 1960 and 1995.
Taking Albert Henderson's numbers as a
I've been trying to understand why the 70% vs 30% issue is so
important here - it means only a factor of two, and different
journals (with their different standards and overheads, and profits
in some cases) have several factors of two differences in costs now.
But I think I see Harnad's reasoning o
I find the ideas here quite interesting, and certainly worth
investigating. We have had some similar notions. The problem that
always comes back to us, though, is one of scale. If you have interactive
discussions on a scientific article, you have to have somebody moderating -
fine if you only have
Several issues have been brought up on PDF vs SGML. It should be mentioned
that PDF is as open as PostScript, and more portable (the language
is fully documented in published books, and a variety of free-ware and
commercial software can create or manipulate it). PDF also includes some
limited marku
hor and
publisher where most of the rights are retained by the author. Some
publishers may want more restrictive agreements, some less, and of
course it will be up to authors to decide what they are willing to live
with. But government mandates on the issue are unlikely to be helpful.
Arthur Smith
So I find myself in the unexpected position of agreeing somewhat more with
Bloom (who I've argued with in the past) than Blume (who I work for). Such
is life...
Harnad's first quote (on goals and motivations in comparison with "professional
authors") we have discussed previously - in brief I belie
Well, I do have some work to get done here - I think I've said just about
everything I need to in previous posts. One final note on the "trade" book
industry:
Stevan Harnad questioned:
>
>(Less rigorous peer review in journals than books? Which journals?
>Which books?)
I actually wasn't specifica
On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:20:19 +1000, Tony Barry wrote:
>At 11:39 PM 1998/08/31, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>To put it really starkly: Ultimately the prestige of refereed journals
>>depends on the referees, and they are in the pay of neither the
>>publisher nor the author in EITHER model.
>
>Its not the
Ok, I knew I would draw some fire for that last message.
Strangely, it doesn't seem to have made it onto the
web archive (though Stevan quoted it extensively) - I think I've
been spending too much time on this debate - is this a nefarious plot?!
I should mention again that I don't speak for my emp
On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:08:39 -0400, Guedon Jean-Claude
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote:
> [...]
>> 4. Non-profits turn to government funding. For-profits cry foul and
>> unfair competition.
>
>Regarding point 4 above. So what if Elsevier cries foul in
There were some good questions on my arguments in Stevan's response,
(under my name) which I will try to address below. But let's turn
first to the core of the argument, from the middle of his response:
Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
>If we agree that we are talking about the
>same much-reduced costs, th
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:40:16 -0400, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
>> There are of course many other electronic-only journals, but they "own"
>> the content in the traditional manner, and do the distribution
>> themselves.
>
>Correct. But if free, they have nothing to lose (and a good deal
>to gain, and s
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 14:47:24 -0400, Christopher D. Green
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote:
>
>> It is all well and good to say "of course peer review will be available",
>> but peer review is expensive and the model you have proposed for a journal
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:04:48 -0400, Stevan Harnad
wrote:
>> Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org) wrote:
>> ... Furthermore, both "overlay" journals have print versions (which
>> they rely on for revenue), so it is hard to truly call them
>> "electronic-only&qu
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:45:02 -0400, Thomas J. Walker
wrote:
>Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org): Might e-reprints be a way to evolve into
>free access in an all-electronic future? Authors (or their institutions or
>grants) would get used to paying for immediate toll-free access. (They
&g
e available to all the players, and while legacy systems
take time to respond, in the end the bigger players are the ones most
likely to have the momentum and capital resources to take full
advantage. And, like in other areas of the economy, the new efficiences
will eventually play themselves out in l
Economics, Competition, etc.
Stevan Harnad makes a telling comment in his response on archiving:
> the virtue of making xxx the locus of more and more of the
> literature in all disciplines is that many eggs can be
> collectively tended in one basket.
a single basket does introduce simplicity -
68 matches
Mail list logo
