Re: [GOAL] INTACT analysis of Springer Compact agreements

. Best regards, Mark Mark Doyle Chief Information Officer American Physical Society On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > Thank you very much for this analysis. > > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Dirk Pieper < > dirk.pie...@uni-bielefeld.de>

Re: New Ranking of Central and Institutional Repositories

ume, page) metadata (or even URLs that don't depend on a DOI), while others are more opaque. CrossRef levels the playing field though and makes DOIs easily discoverable. In any case, one should not underestimate the usefulness of having simple identifiers that map algorithmically to perman

Re: Mandating OA around the corner?

Mark Mark Doyle Assistant Director, Journal Information Systems The American Physical Society * My understanding is that hosting an article on Highwire is about $100 per article.

Re: Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature

wondering Stevan if you ever got a response from Nature to your open letter. I don't want to open the whole thing up for debate again, but I am curious if this was ever clarified by Nature to your satisfaction. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Socie

Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

Stevan, On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 07:26 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: Replies to Jan Velterop, Sol Picciotto, and Mark Doyle Agreed. But be prepared to split the peer-review function from the archiving function. Co-bundling is no longer necessary online, and the economics may be quite

Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy

r inclusion in their institutional and personal archives. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society

Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 10:39 PM, Steve Hitchcock wrote: Certainly institutions must do more than Mark Doyle wants, despite the good work APS is doing, which is for publishers to 'grant back to authors all of the rights they expect'. On this issue, institutions must lead,

Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I31721703 (Many thanks to APS's Mark Doyle for pointing this out!) Not so fast... As I said, the exclusive, open-ended license isn't enforceable in all countries. Also, where in the sample does it say the author can put the published content (the author's o

Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

On Wednesday, January 8, 2003, at 03:19 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:56:09 -0500 From: Mark Doyle md> The APS takes copyright for a variety of reasons (it has been a good md> thing lately for both scanning backfiles and for handling recent cases md> of scienti

Re: Draft Policy for Self-Archiving University Research Output

r career with the publishers of the journals they submit to than with their institutions. Authors might not be happy relinquishing rights to their work if they change employers. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society do...@aps.org

Re: The archival status of archived papers

rs don't get updated more than 2 or 3 times - they follow a pattern of an early replacement with changes reflecting direct reader comments and then a later replacement reflecting changes from a more formal peer-review process. Papers that are replaced more often than this are obviously suspect a

Re: The archival status of archived papers

her they should show items in context and give easy access to an item's history and versioning with a single identifier for the work taken as a whole. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society

Re: OAI and the rational publisher

these may be guideposts to the literature, I am not sure they would provide a suitable way to raise the quality of the literature. They do have some advantages in that the signal isn't a binary yes or no - a "Phys. Rev." one star rating instead of a four star rating would conve

Re: The True Cost of the Essentials

s and which could serve as a marketing place for these services http://www.fachportal-physik.de/ APS of course is interested in developing new services. But the priority for us right now is figuring out what (if anything) is needed to continue to publish our journals which the community still find exce

Re: The True Cost of the Essentials

On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 01:08 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: I have invited Mark Doyle of APS to specify concretely what parallel measures he is recommending that BOAI pursue in order to ensure true archiving in the long-term. BOAI's mandate is to hasten and facilitate open access fo

Re: OAI and the rational publisher

Hi David, On Monday, April 1, 2002, at 05:26 PM, David Goodman wrote: The solution for a publisher is obvious: it should publish good journals, and only good journals. A publisher complaining about the threat of OAI suggests that it knows very well that the quality of its journals cannot compet

Re: The True Cost of the Essentials

ove very accommodating. We shall see Anyway, I don't really have time for these long back and forths and we have become broken records. So I'll stop here. If anyone else in the open access world is interested in pursuing these issues with the APS, please let me know. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society do...@aps.org

Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review - NOT!)

me a reluctant participant in the debates here. Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society do...@aps.org

Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

Greetings David, On Friday, March 29, 2002, at 05:25 PM, David Goodman wrote: Mark, In what respect are PDF and especially TeX archives flawed? A uniform TeX archive built upon high level macros providing tagged information might be a good archival format well into the future. However, the ke

Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

rder for well-intentioned publishers like the APS to develop and move to an open access model. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society do...@aps.org

Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

Hi Stevan, On Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 01:55 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Mark Doyle wrote: I don't see this $30/article [mark-up] price working for a highly technical journal ...a wholesale replacement of the current system [by] one based on self- or institut

Re: Excerpts from FOS Newsletter

Greetings, On Tuesday, March 26, 2002, at 03:07 PM, Peter Suber wrote: The International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publishing (ICAAP) has announced its prices for designing, managing, preparing and hosting electronic journals. After the initial setup fee, the price is $400/yea

Re: Association for Computer Machinery Copyright/Self-Archiving Policy

just a mirror itself - arXiv.org is now hosted at the Cornell University library). Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

ir own work. The APS copyright transfer allows authors to retain the rights they naturally want without impeding us to do what we need to do to ensure wide dissemination and access. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society

Re: PubScience under threat

reserved at all costs. To be sure this is the real point of attacking PubSCIENCE. SIIA wants to push us down that slope. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society

Re: DOI

tages, but I basically agree that there should be many ways to discover DOIs or to generate links to articles. It shouldn't be a closed environment. But I think CrossRef has been quite receptive to leveraging the CrossRef system to helping publishers fit into some of these other systems. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society

Re: The July 6-7 NYAM "Freedom of Information" Meeting

the reasons stated above. CrossRef is a convenience - it does nothing to improve true access. > As an added thought (not > expressed at the meeting): PMC seems to competing more with Highwire than > anyone > else - a number of the PMC journals are on Highwire - why have them both > places? Good question. Highwire happens to be a rather expensive way to distribute journals. I'll leave it to the readers to draw the inference. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society

Re: The July 6-7 NYAM "Freedom of Information" Meeting

7;t have the real capitalist competitive fire that commercial > publishers do. Sort of like the not-for-profit hospitals in the US, that > used to "do well by doing good", and are now struggling to survive in the > waters of corporate medicine. Not easy. If the societies are

Re: Should Publishers Offer Free-Access Services?

ture or classroom purposes, provided that the first page of such use or copy prominently displays the bibliographic data and the following copyright notice: ``Copyright (year) by The American Physical Society.'' Authors may post their PDF files on their own sites, not on e-print servers. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Manager, Product Development The American Physical Society

Re: ACS meeting comments on e-prints

too. This was one of > many fascinating topics discussed as part of the popular CIN > session at the ACS Spring Meeting in San Francisco this week. That's what the publishers say - what about researchers? Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle The American Physical Society Manager, Product Development

Re: NIH's Public Archive for the Refereed Literature: PUBMED CENTRAL

ine significantly and go away altogether, then it would seem to an attractive path. In any case, it clear that new ideas are needed. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Research and Development The American Physical Society

Re: NIH's Public Archive for the Refereed Literature: PUBMED CENTRAL

ear and it running at full capacity. But re-egineer we must, and re-engineer we will. Cheers, Mark Mark Doyle Research and Development The American Physical Society

Re: NIH's Public Archive for the Refereed Literature: PUBMED CENTRAL

tance of e-prints in their day-to-day research and this is something that APS can not and will not ignore. Afterall, they are APS and APS is they. Regards, Mark Mark Doyle Research and Development The American Physical Society

Re: Serials Review Interview

Hi, On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Thomas Krichel wrote: > Mark Doyle notes > It is still operates, and it is still the one archive that will > give your papers the largest exposure. But you can repeat that > to authors as many times as you want, they still don't want to upload >

Re: PDF vs Markup Languages

Hi, On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Tony Barry wrote: > At 11:24 AM 1998/10/14, Selmer Bringsjord wrote: > >I would like to see Tex become the > >standard for this paperless, on-line future. Nothing else makes sense to > >me. > > My money's on XML with developments from it like > M

Re: Serials Review Interview

the quality of the PDF's that you download vary greatly? Are all servers reliably backed up? I don't think you should write off the advantages of having a scalable centralized (but mirrored) repository. Anyway, xxx cooperatively operates with things like NSCTRL, so I don't see why it couldn't do the same for RePEc. It certainly would be one of the more dependable nodes Regards, Mark Doyle APS Research and Development

Re: Nature 10 September on Public Archiving

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, "Albert Henderson " wrote: > On 22 Sep 1998 Mark Doyle wrote: > Don't you think you should consult the King work before disagreeing with > it? I didn't disagree with it - I questioned its validity after 20 years with the rise of all sorts of

Re: Citation and Rejection Statistics for Eprints and Ejournals

From: Mark Doyle On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, "Greg Youngen " wrote: > The numbers have remained pretty consistent over the time period. Of > course the percentage of eprints will diminish in time as more and more > articles are published citing the print literature. However, cit

Re: Nature 10 September on Public Archiving

hink their motivations are different than your maximally cynical take on it. > Why has [Phys. Rev] remained in print and not gone totally electronic? Because the transition takes time and since we compete in a marketplace we can't act always ideally. Furthermore, the transition is a global one that involves more than just publishers. We are starting new journals that are totally electronic and I predict our journals will be primarily electronic (print would be a secondary product) within 5 years. PRD is already close to that. Mark Doyle APS Research and Development.

Re: Nature 10 September on Public Archiving

to meet supply. But this is backwards -- it is the supplier who responds to demand. It is up to the publishers to respond to market forces in other ways than continually raising prices and re-evaluate the way they do business. So much for your free market views > Your are against better financial support for libraries? This is the silliest cariacture yet. We are against increasing support just to feed publishers who refuse to take measures to reduce the costs in their business (or their profit margins). We would rather see libraries free up money they already have for other uses by reducing their ever-increasing outlays for acquiring and maintaining their serials collections. Mark Doyle APS Research and Development do...@aps.org

Re: Nature 10 September on Public Archiving

n my eyes this is due to universities diverting > library finances to support administrative growth. > A solution to the problems of dissemination would be easily derived by > financial support of library growth that would keep up with research. A sub-optimal solution you mean. Another solution is to change the process so that library growth isn't required. Such solutions exist. Regards, Mark Doyle APS Research and Development

Re: The Urgent Need to Plan a Stable Transition

t there is no harm in this, as these products will enhance access to the author's work and the costs for doing this will be recouped from the product itself, not by depriving the author of any earnings. Mark Doyle APS Research and Development

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Hi, On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote: > Then we have no concrete examples of an "overlay" electronic-only > journal at all. So the thing you are proposing does not yet exist. > Meanwhile, existing academic journals are moving forward. My argument > is that a purely electronic "overlay" jou

Re: Should Publishers Offer Free-Access Services?

Hi, On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, "Thomas J. Walker" wrote: > Mark Doyle (do...@aps.org): Do authors in APS journals buy paper reprints? > Would they buy e-reprints at the same price (or lower)? Would electronic > reprints be a welcomed new service to APS members? Yes, some auth

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Hi, On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Stevan Harnad wrote: > There is a danger to publishers there: The only 2 services that they > are the relevant experts in are (1) implementing peer-review and (2) > editing/mark-up -- in other words content and form quality control. The > other add-ons (links, searching,

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Hi all, Well this discussion at least has led to the deflation of one myth that I often encounter: that the APS acts as a single cohesive unit with agreement among all. Anyway, Arthur makes some good points, but I disagree with some of his points. On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, "Arthur Smith " wrote: > Ha

Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

to us). Regarding copyright: The APS explicitly recognizes the rights of authors to circulate their work through xxx, even after APS certification (and even the revised manuscript can be circulated in this way). Cheers, Mark Doyle APS Research and Development do...@aps.org