August 2005 - LIS-Forum - ncsi.iisc.ernet.in

Fwd: Journal Publishing and Author Self-Archiving
by Subbiah Arunachalam 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

--- Stevan Harnad <harnad(a)ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote: > Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:25:44 +0100 > From: Stevan Harnad <harnad(a)ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> > Subject: Journal Publishing and Author > Self-Archiving > To: > AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM(a)LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG > > Journal Publishing and Author Self-Archiving: > Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration > > A (shorter) UK-only version was co-signed by: > > Tim Berners-Lee (UK, Southampton & US, MIT) > Dave De Roure (UK, Southampton) > Stevan Harnad (UK, Southampton & Canada, > UQaM) > Derek Law (UK, Strathclyde) > Peter Murray-Rust (UK, Cambridge) > Charles Oppenheim (UK, Loughborough) > Nigel Shadbolt (UK, Southampton) > Yorick Wilks (UK, Sheffield) > > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/18-guid.html > > This longer version is also signed by: > > Subbiah Arunachalam (India, MSRF) > Helene Bosc (France, INRA, ret.) > Fred Friend (UK, University College, London) > Andrew Odlyzko (US, University of Minnesota) > Peter Suber (US, Earlham) > > Please also see the version with hyperlinks: > > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/20-guid.html > > SUMMARY: The UK Research Funding Councils (RCUK) > have proposed > that all RCUK fundees should self-archive on the > web, free for > all, their own final drafts of journal articles > reporting their > RCUK-funded research, in order to maximise their > usage and > impact. ALPSP (a learned publishers' > association) now seeks > to delay and block the RCUK proposal, auguring > that it will > ruin journals. All objective evidence from the > past decade and > a half of self-archiving, however, shows that > self-archiving > can and does co-exist peacefully with journals > while greatly > enhancing both author/article and journal > impact, to the benefit > of both. Journal publishers should not be trying > to delay and > block self-archiving policy; they should be > collaborating with > the research community on ways to share its vast > benefits. > > > This is a public reply, co-signed by the above, to > the August 5, > 2005, public letter by Sally Morris, Executive > Director of ALPSP > (Association of Learned and Professional Society > Publishers) to > Professor Ian Diamond, Chair, RCUK (Research > Councils UK), concerning > the RCUK proposal to mandate the web self-archiving > of authors' > final drafts of all journal articles resulting from > RCUK-funded > research, making them freely accessible to all > researchers worldwide > who cannot afford access to the official journal > version, in order > to maximise the usage and impact of the RCUK-funded > research findings. > > It is extremely important that the arguments and > objective evidence > for or against the optimality of research > self-archiving policy be > aired and discussed openly, as they have been for > several years > now, all over the world, so that policy decisions > are not influenced > by one-sided arguments from special interests that > can readily be > shown to be invalid. Every single one of the points > made by the > ALPSP below is incorrect -- incorrect from the > standpoint of both > objective evidence and careful logical analysis. We > accordingly > provide a point by point rebuttal here, along with a > plea for an > end to publishers' efforts to block or delay > self-archiving policy > -- a policy that is undeniably beneficial to > research and researchers, > as well as to their institutions and the public that > funds them. > Publishers should collaborate with the research > community to share > the benefits of maximising research access and > impact. > > (Please note that this is not the first time the > ALPSP's points > have been made, and rebutted; but whereas the > rebuttals take very > careful, detailed account of the points made by > ALPSP, the ALPSP > unfortunately just keeps repeating its points > without taking any > account of the detailed replies. By way of > illustration, the prior > ALPSP critique of the RCUK proposal (April 19) was > followed on July > 1 by a point-by-point rebuttal. The reader who > compares the two > cannot fail to notice certain recurrent themes that > ALPSP keeps > ignoring in their present critique. In particular, 3 > of the 5 > examples that ALPSP cites below as evidence of the > negative effects > of self-archiving on journals turn out to have > nothing at all to > do with self-archiving, exactly as pointed out in > the earlier > rebuttal. The other 2 examples turn out to be > positive evidence for > the potential of sharing the benefits through > cooperation and > collaboration between the research and publishing > community, rather > than grounds for denying research and researchers > those benefits > through opposition.) > > The RCUK draft proposal is at: > http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/statement.pdf > > All quotes below are from: > > ALPSP response to RCUK's proposed position > statement > on access to research outputs > http://www.alpsp.org/news/rcuk/default.htm > > which was addressed to: Professor Ian Diamond, > Research Councils > UK Secretariat on 5th August, 2005: > > > ALPSP: "Although the mission of our publisher > members is to > > disseminate and maximise access to research > information" > > The principle of maximising access to research > information is indeed > the very essence of the issue at hand. The reader of > the following > statements and counter-statements should accordingly > bear this > principle in mind while weighing them: Unlike the > authors of books > or of magazine and newspaper articles, the authors > of research > journal articles are not writing in order to sell > their words, but > in order to share their findings, so other > researchers can use and > build upon them, in order to advance research > progress, to the > benefit of the public that funded the research. This > usage and > application is called research impact. Research > impact is a measure > of research progress and productivity: the influence > that the > findings have had on the further course of research > and its > applications; the difference it has made that a > given piece of > research has been conducted at all, rather than > being left unfunded > and undone. Research impact is the reason the public > funds the > research and the reason researchers conduct the > research and report > the results. Research that makes no impact may as > well not have > been conducted at all. One of the primary indicators > -- but by no > means the only one -- of research impact is the > number of resulting > pieces of research by others that make use of a > finding, by citing > it. Citation counts are accordingly quantitative > measures of research > impact. (The reader is reminded, at this early point > in our critique, > that it is impossible for a piece of research to be > read, used, > applied and cited by any researcher who cannot > access it. Research > access is a necessary (though not a sufficient) > condition for > research impact.) > > Owing to this central importance of impact in the > research growth > and progress cycle, the authors of research are > rewarded not by > income from the sales of their texts, like normal > authors, but by > 'impact income' based on how much their research > findings are used, > applied, cited and built upon. Impact is what helps > pay the author's > salary, what brings further RCUK grant income, and > what brings RAE > (Research Assessment Exercise) income to the > author's institution. > And the reason the public pays taxes for the RCUK > and RAE to use > to fund research in the first place is so that that > research can > benefit the public -- not so that it can generate > sales income for > publishers. There is nothing wrong with research > also generating > sales income for publishers. But there is definitely > something wrong > if publishers try to prevent researchers from > maximising the impact > of their research, by maximising access to it. For > whatever limits > research access limits research progress; to repeat: > access is a > necessary condition for impact. > > Hence, for researchers and their institutions, the > need to 'maximise > access to research information' is not just a pious > promotional > slogan: Whatever denies access to their research > output is denying > the public the research impact and progress it paid > for and denying > researchers and their institutions the impact income > they worked > for. Journals provide access to all individuals and > institutions > that can afford to subscribe to them, and that is > fine. But what > about all the other would-be users -- those > researchers world-wide > whose institutions happen to be unable to afford to > subscribe to > the journal in which a research finding happens to > be published? > There are 24,000 research journals and most > institutions can afford > access only to a small fraction of them. Across all > fields tested > so far (including physics, mathematics, biology, > economics, > business/management, sociology, education, > psychology, and philosophy), > articles that have been self-archived freely on the > web, thereby > maximising access, have been shown to have 50%-250+% > greater citation > impact than articles that have not been > self-archived. Is it > reasonable to expect researchers and their > institutions and funders > to continue to renounce that vast impact potential > in an online age > that has made this impact-loss no longer necessary? > Can asking > researchers to keep on losing that impact be > seriously described > as 'maximising access to research information'? Now > let us see on > what grounds researchers are being asked to renounce > this impact: > > > ALPSP: "we find ourselves unable to support RCUK's > proposed > > position paper on the means of achieving this. We > continue to > > stress all the points we made in our previous > response, dated 19 > > April, and are insufficiently reassured by RCUK's > reply. We are > > convinced that RCUK's proposed policy will > inevitably lead to the > > destruction of journals." > > If it were indeed true that the RCUK's policy will > inevitably lead > to the destruction of journals, then this > contingency would definitely > be worthy of further time and thought. > > But there is in fact no objective evidence > whatseover in support > of this dire prophecy. All evidence (footnote 1) > from 15 years of > self-archiving (in some fields having reached 100% > self-archiving > long ago) is exactly the opposite: that > self-archiving and journal > publication can and do continue to co-exist > peacefully, with > institutions continuing to subscribe to the journals > they can afford, > and researchers at the institutions that can afford > them continuing > to use them; the only change is that the author's > own self-archived > final drafts (as well as earlier pre-refereeing > preprints) are now > accessible to all those researchers whose > institutions could not > afford the official journal version (as well as to > any who may wish > to consult the pre-refereeing preprints). In other > words, the > self-archived author's drafts, pre- and > post-refereeing, are > supplements to the official journal version, not > substitutes for > it. > > In the absence of any objective evidence at all to > the effect that > self-archiving reduces subscriptions, let alone > destroys journals, > and in the face of 15 years' worth of evidence to > the contrary, > ALPSP simply amplifies the rhetoric, elevating pure > speculation to > a putative justification for continuing to delay and > oppose a policy > that is already long overdue and a practice that has > already been > amply demonstrated to deliver something of immense > benefit to > research, researchers, their institutions and > funders: dramatically > enhanced impact. All this, ALPSP recommends, is to > be put on hold > because some publishers have the 'conviction' that > self-archiving > will destroy journals. > > > ALPSP: "A policy of mandated self-archiving of > research articles > > in freely accessible repositories, when combined > with the ready > > retrievability of those articles through search > engines (such as > > Google Scholar) and interoperability (facilitated > by standards > > such as OAI-PMH), will accelerate the move to a > disastrous > > scenario." > > The objective evidence from 15 years of continuous > self-archiving > by physicists (even longer by computer scientists) > has in fact > tested this grim hypothesis; and this cumulative > evidence affords > not the slightest hint of any move to a 'disastrous > scenario.' > Throughout the past decade and a half, final drafts > of hundreds of > thousands of articles have been made freely > accessible and readily > retrievable by their authors (in some fields > approaching 100% of > the research published). And these have indeed been > extensively > accessed and retrieved and used and applied and > cited by researchers > in those disciplines, exactly as their authors > intended (and far > more extensively than articles for which the > authors' drafts had > not been made freely accessible). Yet when asked, > both of the large > physics learned societies (the Institute of Physics > Publishing in > the UK and the American Physical Society) responded > very explicitly > that they could identify no loss of subscriptions to > their journals > as a result of this critical mass of self-archived > and readily > retrievable physics articles (footnote 1). The > ALPSP's doomsday > conviction does not gain in plausibility by merely > being repeated, > ever louder. > > Google Scholar and OAI-PMH do indeed make the > self-archived supplements > more accessible to their would-be users, but that is > the point: The > purpose of self-archiving is to maximise access to > research > information. (Some publishers may still be in the > habit of reckoning > that research is well-served by access-denial, but > the providers > of that research -- the researchers themselves, and > their funders > -- can perhaps be forgiven for reckoning, and > acting, otherwise.) > > > ALPSP: "Librarians will increasingly find that > 'good enough' > > versions of a significant proportion of articles > in journals are > > freely available; in a situation where they lack > the funds to > > purchase all the content their users want > [emphasis added] it is > > inconceivable that they would not seek to save > money by cancelling > > subscriptions to those journals. As a result, > those journals will > > die." > > First, please note the implicit premise here: Where > research > institutions 'lack the funds to purchase all the > content their > researchers want,' the users (researchers) should do > without that > content, and the providers (researchers) should do > without the usage > and impact, rather than just giving it to one > another, as the RCUK > proposes. And why? Because researchers giving their > own research > to researchers who cannot afford the journal version > will make the > journals die. > > Second, RCUK-funded researchers publish in thousands > of journals > all over the world -- the UK, Europe and North > America. Their > publications, though important, represent the output > of only a small > fraction of the world's research population. Neither > research topics > nor research journals have national boundaries. > Hence it is unlikely > that a 'significant proportion' of the articles in > any particular > journal will become freely available purely as a > consequence of the > RCUK policy. > > Third, journals die and are born every year, since > the advent of > journals. Their birth may be because of a new niche, > and their > demise might be because of the loss or saturation of > an old niche, > or because the new niche was an illusion. Scholarly > fashions, > emphases and growth regions also change. This is > ordinary intellectual > evolution plus market economics. > > Fourth (and most important), as we have already > noted, physics > journals already do contain a 'significant > proportion' of articles > that have been self-archived in the physics > repository, arXiv -- > yet librarians have not cancelled subscriptions > (footnote 1) despite > a decade and a half's opportunity to do so, and the > journals continue > to survive and thrive. So whereas ALPSP may find it > subjectively > 'inconceivable,' the objective fact is that > self-carving is not > generating cancellations, even where it is most > advanced and has > been going on the longest. > > Research libraries -- none of which can afford to > subscribe to all > journals, because they have only finite journals > budgets -- have > always tried to maximise their purchasing power, > cancelling journals > they think their users need less, and subscribing to > journals they > think their users need more. As objective > indicators, some may use > (1) usage statistics (paper and online) and (2) > citation impact > factors, but the final decision is almost always > made on the basis > of (3) surveys of their own users' recommendations > (footnote 2). > Self-archiving does not change this one bit, because > self-archiving > is not done on a per-journal basis but on a > per-article basis. And > it is done anarchically, distributed across authors, > institutions > and disciplines. An RCUK mandate for all RCUK-funded > researchers > to self-archive all their articles will have no net > differential > effect on any particular journal one way or the > other. Nor will > RCUK-mandated self-archiving exhaust the contents of > any particular > journal. So librarians' money-saving and > budget-balancing > subscription/cancellation efforts may proceed apace. > Journals will > continue to be born and to die, as they always did, > but with no > differential influence from self-archiving. > > But let us fast-forward this speculation: The RCUK > self-archiving > mandate itself is unlikely to result in any > individual journal's > author-archived supplements rising to anywhere near > 100%, but if > the RCUK model is followed (as is quite likely) by > other nations > around the world, we may indeed eventually reach > 100% self-archiving > for all articles in all journals. That would > certainly be optimal > for research, researchers, their institutions, their > funders, and > the tax-paying public that funds the funders. Would > it be disastrous > for journals? A certain amount of pressure would > certainly be taken > off librarians' endless struggle to balance their > finite journal > budgets: The yearly journal selection process would > no longer be a > struggle for basic survival (as all researchers > would have online > access to at least the author-self-archived > supplements), but market > competition would continue among > publisher-added-values, which > include (1) the paper edition and (2) the official, > value-added, > online edition (functionally enriched with XML > mark-up, citation > links, publisher's PDF, etc.). The market for those > added values > would continue to determine what was subscribed to > and what was > cancelled, pretty much as it does now, but in a > stabler way, without > the mounting panic and desperation that struggling > with balancing > researchers' basic inelastic survival needs has been > carrying with > it for years now (the 'serials crisis'). > > If, on the other hand, the day were ever to come > when there was no > longer a market for the paper edition, and no longer > a market for > some of the online added-values, then surely the > market can be > trusted to readjust to that new supply/demand > optimum, with publishers > continuing to sell whatever added values there is > still a demand > for. One sure added-value, for example, is peer > review. Although > journals don't actually perform the peer review > (researchers do it > for them, for free), they do administer it, with > qualified expert > editors selecting the referees, adjudicating the > referee reports, > and ensuring that authors revise as required. It is > conceivable > that one day that peer review service will be sold > as a separate > service to authors and their insitutions, with the > journal-name > just a tag that certifies the outcome, instead of > being bundled > into a product that is sold to users and their > institutions. But > that is just a matter of speculation right now, when > there is still > a healthy demand for both the paper and online > editions. Publishing > will co-evolve naturally with the evolution of the > online medium > itself. But what cannot be allowed to happen now is > for researchers' > impact (and the public's investment and stake in it) > to be held > hostage to the status quo, under the pretext of > forestalling a > doomsday scenario that has no evidence to support it > and all evidence > to date contradicting it. > > > ALPSP: "The consequences of the destruction of > journals' viability > > are very serious. Not only will it become > impossible to support > > the whole process of quality control, including > (but not limited > > to) peer review" > > Notice that the doomsday scenario has simply been > taken for granted > here, despite the absence of any actual evidence for > it, and despite > all the existing evidence to the contrary. Because > it is being > intoned so shrilly and with such 'conviction', it is > to be taken > at face value, and we are simply to begin our > reckoning with accepting > it as an unchallenged premise: but that premise is > without any > objective foundation whatsoever. > > As ALPSP mentions peer review, however, is this not > the point to > remind ourselves that among the many > (unquestionable) values that > the publisher does add, peer-review is a rather > anomalous one, being > an unpaid service that researchers themselves are > rendering to the > publisher gratis (just as they give their articles > gratis, without > seeking any payment)? > > As noted above, peer review and the certification of > its outcome > could in principle be sold as a separate service to > the author-institution, > instead of being bundled with a product to the > subscriber-institution; > hence it is not true that it would be 'impossible to > support' peer > review even if journals' subscription base were to > collapse entirely. > But as there is no evidence of any tendency toward a > collapse of > the subscription base, this is all just hypothetical > speculation > at this point. > > > ALPSP: "but in addition, the research community > will lose all the > > other value and prestige which is added, for both > author and > > reader, through inclusion in a highly rated > journal with a clearly > > understood audience and rich online > functionality." > > Wherever authors and readers value either the paper > edition or the > rich online functionality -- both provided only by > the publisher > -- they will continue to subscribe to the journal as > long as they > can afford it, either personally or through their > institutional > library. As noted above, this clearly continues to > be the case for > the physics journals that are the most advanced in > testing the > waters of self-archiving. Publishers who add > sufficient value create > a product that the market will pay for (by the > definition of supply, > demand and sufficient-value). However, surely the > interests of > research and the public that funds it are not > best-served if those > researchers (potential users) who happen to be > unable to afford the > particular journal in which the functionally > enriched, value-added > version is published are denied access to the basic > research finding > itself. Even more important and pertinent to the > RCUK proposal: The > fundee's and funder's research should not be denied > the impact > potential from all those researchers who cannot > afford access. > > Researchers have always given away all their > findings (to their > publishers as well as to all requesters of reprints) > so that other > researchers could further advance the research by > using, applying > and building upon their findings. Access-denial has > always limited > the progress, productivity and impact of science and > scholarship. > Now the online age has at last made it possible to > put an end to > this needless access-denial and resultant > impact-loss; the RCUK is > simply the first to propose systematically applying > the natural, > optimal, and inevitable remedy to all research > output. > > Whatever publisher-added value is truly value > continues to be of > value when it co-exists with author self-archiving. > Articles continue > to appear in journals, and the enriched > functionality of the official > value-added online edition (as well as the paper > edition) are still > there to be purchased. It is just that those who > could not afford > them previously will no longer be deprived of access > to the research > findings themselves > > > ALPSP: "This in turn will deprive learned > societies of an important > > income stream, without which many will be unable > to support their > > other activities -- such as meetings, bursaries, > research funding, > > public education and patient information -- which > are of huge > > benefit both to their research communities and to > the general > > public." > > (Notice, first, that this is all still predicated on > the truth of > the doomsday conviction -- 'that self-archiving will > inevitably > destroy journals' -- which is contradicted by all > existing evidence.) > > But insofar as learned-societies 'other activieties' > are concerned, > there is a very simple, straight-forward way to put > the proposition > at issue: Does anyone imagine that -- if a > trade-off, either/or > choice point were ever actually reached -- > researchers would knowingly > and willingly choose to continue subsidising learned > societies' > admirable good works -- meetings, bursaries, > research funding, > public education and patient information -- at the > cost of their > own lost research impact? > > The ALPSP doomsday 'conviction', however, has no > basis in evidence, > hence there no either/or choice needs to be made. > All indications > to date are that learned societies will continue to > publish journals > -- adding value and successfully selling that > added-value -- in > peaceful co-existence with RCUK-mandated > self-archiving. But entirely > apart from that, ALPSP certainly has no grounds for > asking researchers > to renounce maximising their own research impact for > the sake of > financing learned societies' good works (like > meetings, bursaries > and public education) -- good works that could > finance themselves > in alternative ways that were not parasitic on > research progress, > if circumstances were ever to demand it > > The ALPSP letter began by stating that the mission > of ALPSP publisher > members is to 'disseminate and maximise access to > research information'. > Some of the journal-publishing learned societies do > indeed affirm > that this is their mission; yet by their restrictive > publishing > practices they actively contradict it, and defend > the resulting > inescapable contradiction by pleading a disaster > scenario (very > like the one ALPSP repeatedly invokes) in the name > of protecting > the publishing profits that support all of the > society's other > activities. Yet this is not the attitude of > forward-thinking, > member-oriented societies that understand properly > what researchers > in their fields need and know how to deliver it. > Here is a quote > from Dr Elizabeth Marincola, Executive Director of > the American > Society for Cell Biology, a sizeable but not huge > society (10,000 > members; many US scientific and medical societies > have over 100,000 > members): > > "I think the more dependent societies are on > their publications, > the farther away they are from the real needs of > their > members. If they were really doing good work and > their > members were aware of this, then they wouldn't > be so fearful'' > When my colleagues come to me and say they > couldn't possibly > think of putting their publishing revenues at > risk, I think > 'why haven't you been diversifying your revenue > sources all > along and why haven't you been diversifying your > products > all along?' The ASCB offers a diverse range of > products so > that if publications were at risk financially, > we wouldn't > lose our membership base because there are lots > of other > reasons why people are members." (Footnote 3) > > This perfectly encapsulates why we should not be too > credulous about > the dire warnings emanating from learned societies > to the effect > that self-archiving will damage research and its > dissemination. The > dissemination of research findings should, as > avowed, be a high-priority > service for societies -- a direct end in itself, not > just a trade > activity to generate profit so as to subsidise other > activities, > at the expense of research itself. > > > ALPSP: "The damaging effects will not be limited > to UK-published > > journals and UK societies; UK research authors > publish their work > > in the most appropriate journals, irrespective of > the journals' > > country of origin." > > The thrust of the above statement is rather unclear: > The RCUK-mandated > self-archiving itself will indeed be distributed > across all journals, > worldwide. Hence, if it had indeed been 'damaging', > that damage > would likewise be distributed (and diluted) across > all journals, > not concentrated on any particular journal. So what > is the point > being made here? > > But in fact there is no evidence at all that > self-archiving is > damaging to journals, rather than co-existing > peacefully with them; > and a great deal of evidence that it is extremely > beneficial to > research, researchers, their institutions and their > funders. > > > ALPSP: "We absolutely reject unsupported > assertions that > > self-archiving in publicly accessible repositories > does not and > > will not damage journals. Indeed, we are > accumulating a growing > > body of evidence that the opposite is the case > [emphasis added], > > even at this early stage" > > We shall now examine whose assertions need to be > absolutely rejected > as unsupported, and whether there is indeed 'a > growing body of > evidence that the opposite is the case'. > > What follows is the ALPSP's 5 pieces of putative > evidence in support > of their expressed 'conviction' that self-archiving > will damage > journals. Please follow carefully, as the first two > pieces of > evidence [1]-[2] -- concerning usage and citation > statistics -- > will turn out to be positive evidence rather than > negative evidence, > and the last three pieces of evidence [3]-[5] -- > concerning journals > that make all of their own articles free online -- > turn out to have > nothing whatsoever to do with author self-archiving: > > > ALPSP: "For example: [1] Increasingly, librarians > are making use > > of COUNTER-compliant (and therefore comparable) > usage statistics > > to guide their decisions to renew or cancel > journals. The Institute > > of Physics Publishing is therefore concerned to > see that article > > downloads from its site are significantly lower > for those journals > > whose content is substantially replicated in the > ArXiV repository > > than for those which are not." > > How does example [1] show that 'the opposite is the > case'? As has > already been reported above, the Institute of > Physics Publishing > (UK) and the American Physical Society have both > stated publicly > that they can identify no loss of subscriptions as a > result of > nearly 15 years of self-archiving by physicists! > (Moreover, publishers > and institutional repositories can and will easily > work out a > collaborative system of pooled usage statistics, all > credited to > the publisher's official version; so that is no > principled obstacle > either.) > > The easiest thing in the world for Institutional > Repositories (IRs) > to provide to publishers (along with the link from > the self-archived > supplement in the IR to the official journal version > on the publisher's > website -- something that is already dictated by > good scholarly > practice) is the IR download statistics for the > self-archived version > of each article. These can be pooled with the > download statistics > for the official journal version and all of it > (rightly) credited > to the article itself. Another bonus that the > self-archived supplements > already provide is enhanced citation impact -- of > which it is not > only the article, the author, the institution and > the funder who > are the co-beneficiaries, but also the journal and > the publisher, > in the form of an enhanced journal impact factor > (average citation > count). It has also been demonstrated recently that > download impact > and citation impact are correlated, downloads in the > first six > months after publication being predictive of > citations after 2 > years. > > All these statistics and benefits are there to be > shared between > publishers, librarians and research institutions in > a cooperative, > collaborative atmosphere that welcomes the benefits > of self-archiving > to research and that works to establish a system > that shares them > among the interested parties. Collaboration on the > sharing of the > benefits of self-archiving is what learned societies > should be > setting up meetings to do -- rather than just trying > to delay and > oppose what is so obviously a substantial and > certain benefit to > research, researchers, their institutions and > funders, as well as > a considerable potential benefit to journals, > publishers and > libraries. If publishers take an adversarial stance > on self-archiving, > all they do is deny themselves of its potential > benefits (out of > the groundless but self-sustaining 'conviction' that > self-archiving > can inevitably bring them only disaster). Its > benefits to research > are demonstrated and incontestable, hence will > incontestably prevail. > (ALPSP's efforts to delay the optimal and inevitable > will not redound > to learned societies' historic credit; the sooner > they drop their > filibustering and turn to constructive cooperation > and collaboration, > the better for all parties concerned.) > > > ALPSP: "[2] Citation statistics and the resultant > impact factors > > are of enormous importance to authors and their > institutions; > > they also influence librarians' > renewal/cancellation decisions. > > Both the Institute of Physics and the London > Mathematical Society > > are therefore troubled to note an increasing > tendency for authors > > to cite only the repository version of an article, > without > > mentioning the journal in which it was later > published." > > Librarians' decisions about which journals to renew > or cancel take > into account a variety of comparative measures, > citation statistics > being one of them (footnote 2). Self-archiving has > now been analysed > extensively and shown to increase journal article > citations > substantially in field after field; so journals > carrying self-archived > articles will have higher impact factors, and will > hence perform > better under this measure in competing for their > share of libraries' > serials budgets. This refutes example [2]. > > As to the proper citation of the official journal > version: This is > merely a question of proper scholarly practice, > which is evolving > and will of course adapt naturally to the new > medium; a momentary > lag in scholarly rigour is certainly no argument > against the practice > of self-archiving or its benefits to research and > researchers. > Moreover, publishers and institutional repositories > can and will > easily work out a collaborative system of pooled > citation and > reference statistics -- all credited to the official > published > version. So that is no principled obstacle either. > This is all just > a matter of adapting scholarly practices naturally > to the new medium > (and is likewise inevitable). It borders on the > absurd to cite > something whose solution is so simple and obvious as > serious grounds > for preventing research impact from being maximised > by universal > self-archiving! > > > ALPSP: "[3] Evidence is also growing that free > availability of > > content has a very rapid negative effect on > subscriptions. Oxford > > University Press made the contents of Nucleic > Acids Research > > freely available online six months after > publication; subscription > > loss was much greater than in related journals > where the content > > was free after a year. The journal became fully > Open Access this > > year, but offered a substantial reduction in the > publication > > charge to those whose libraries maintained a print > subscription; > > however, the drop in subscriptions has been far > more marked than > > was anticipated." > > This is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with > self-archiving, > one way or the other (as was already pointed out in > the prior > rebuttal of APLSP's April critique of the RCUK > proposal): This > example refers to an entire journal's contents -- > the official > value-added versions, all being made freely > accessible, all at once, > by the publisher -- not to the anarchic, > article-by-article > self-archiving of the author's final draft by the > author, which is > what the RCUK is mandating. This example in fact > reinforces what > was noted earlier: that RCUK-mandated self-archiving > does not single > out any individual journal (as OU Press did above > with one of its > own) and drive its self-archived content to 100%. > Self-archiving > is distributed randomly across all journals. Since > journals compete > (somewhat) with one another for their share of each > institution's > finite journal acquisitions budget, it is > conceivable that if one > journal gives away 100% of its official, value-added > contents online > and the others don't, that journal might be making > itself more > vulnerable to differential cancellation (though not > necessarily: > there are reported examples of the exact opposite > effect too, with > the free online version increasing not only > visibility, usage and > citations, but thereby also increasing > subscriptions, serving as > an advertisement for the journal). But this is in > any case no > evidence for cancellation-inducing effects of > self-archiving, which > involves only the author's final drafts and is not > focussed on any > one journal but randomly distributed across all > journals, leaving > them to continue to compete for subscriptions > amongst themselves, > on the basis of their relative merits, exactly as > they did before. > > > ALPSP: "[4] The BMJ Publishing Group has noted a > similar effect; > > the journals that have been made freely available > online on > > publication have suffered greatly increased > subscription attrition, > > and access controls have had to be imposed to > ensure the survival > > of these titles." > > Exactly the same reply as above: The risks of making > 100% of one > journal's official, value-added contents free online > while all other > journals are not doing likewise has nothing > whatosever to do with > anarchic self-archiving, by authors, of the final > drafts of their > own articles, distributed randomly across journals. > > > ALPSP: "[5] In the USA, the Institute for > Operations Research and > > the Management Sciences found that two of its > journals had, without > > its knowledge, been made freely available on the > Web. For one > > of these, an established journal, they noted a > subscriptions > > decline which was more than twice as steep as the > average for > > their other established journals; for the other, a > new journal > > where subscriptions would normally have been > growing, they declined > > significantly. While the unauthorised free > versions have now been > > removed, it is too early to tell whether the > damage is permanent." > > Exactly the same artifact as in the prior two cases. > (The trouble > with self-generated Doomsday Scenarios is that they > tend to assume > such a grip on the imagination that their > propounders cannot > distinguish objective evidence from the > 'corroboration' that comes > from merely begging the question or changing the > subject!) > > In all three examples, whole journals were made > freely available, > all at once, in their entirety, along with all the > added value and > rich online functionality that a journal provides. > This is not at > all the same as authors self-archiving only their > own final drafts > (which are simply their basic research reports), and > doing so on a > single-article (rather than a whole-journal) basis. > Yet the latter > is all that the RCUK proposes to mandate. Hence > examples [3]-[5] > are really a misleading conflation of two altogether > different > matters, creating the illusion of support for what > is in fact an > untenable conclusion on which they actually have no > bearing one way > or the other. > > [Moreover -- even though it has nothing at all to do > with what the > RCUK is mandating --if one does elect to look at > evidence from > whole-journal open access then there are many more > examples of > journals that have benefited from being made freely > available: > Molecular Biology of the Cell's subscriptions, for > example, have > grown steadily after free access was provided by its > publisher, The > American Society for Cell Biology (footnote 3). That > journal also > enjoys a high impact factor and healthy submissions > by authors, > encouraged by the increased exposure their articles > receive. The > same has happened for journals published by other > societies (footnote > 4).] > > > ALPSP: "In addition, it is increasingly clear that > this is exactly > > how researchers are already using search engines > such as Scirus > > and Google Scholar: Greg R. Notess, Reference > Librarian, Montana > > State University, in a recent article in > Information Today (Vol > > 29, No 4) writes 'At this point, my main use of > both [Scirus and > > Google Scholar] is for finding free Web versions > of otherwise > > inaccessible published articles.'" > > This is merely a repetition of ALPSP's earlier point > about OAI and > Google Scholar. Reply: Yes, these wonderful new > resources do increase > access to the self-archived supplements: but that's > the point! To > maximise research access, usage and impact. > > Other search engines that retrieve free access > articles (such as > citebase, citeseer and OAIster) likewise serve the > research community > by enabling any unsubscribed researchers to find and > access drafts > of articles they could not otherwise use because > they are accessible > only by subscription. ISI's Web of Knowledge and > Elsevier's Scopus, > both paid services, find the authors' free versions > as well as the > journals' subscription-only versions, which > researchers can then > use whenever they or their institutions can afford > subscription, > license, or pay-per-view access; Elsevier's Scirus, > a free service, > likewise retrieves both, as does Google itself (if > at least the > reference metadata are made web-accessible). All > these services do > indeed help to maximise access, usage and impact, > all to the benefit > of the impact of that small proportion of current > research that > happens to be spontaneously self-archived already > (15%). The RCUK > mandate will increase this benefit systematically to > that remaining > 85% of UK research output that is still only > accessible today to > those who can afford the official journal version. > > > ALPSP: "'I found a number of full-text articles > via Google Scholar > > that are PDFs downloaded from a publisher site and > then posted > > on another site, free to all.'" > > This point, on the other hand, is not about author > self-archiving, > but about pirating and bootleg of the publisher's > official version. > RCUK is not mandating or condoning anything like > that: The policy > pertains only to authors' own final drafts, > self-archived by them > -- not to the published version poached by 3rd party > consumers, > which is called theft. (Hence this point is > irrelevant.) > > > ALPSP: "'Both Scirus and Scholar were also useful > for finding > > author-hosted article copies, preprints, e-prints, > and other > > permutations of the same article.'" > > Exactly as one would hope they would be, if one > hopes to 'maximise > access to research'. > > > ALPSP: "In the light of this growing evidence of > serious and > > irreversible damage, each publisher must have the > right to establish > > the best way of expanding access to its journal > content that is > > compatible with continuing viability." > > So far no evidence whatsoever of 'serious and > irreversible damage' > (or indeed of any damage) caused by author > self-archiving has been > presented by ALPSP. (This is unsurprising, because > in reality no > such evidence exists, and all existing evidence is > to the contrary.) > > Of course publishers can and should do whatever they > wish in order > to expand access to their journal content and remain > viable. But > they certainly have no right to prevent researchers, > their institutions > and their funders from likewise doing whatever they > can and wish > in order to expand the access to, and the impact of, > their own > research findings -- nor to expect them to agree to > keep waiting > passively to see whether their publishers will one > day maximise > their access and impact for them. > > 100% self-archiving is already known to be both > doable and to enhance > research impact substantially; self-archiving has > also been co-existing > peacefully with journals for over a decade and a > half (including > in those fields where 100% self-archiving has > already been reached) > ; 100% self-archiving overall is already well > overdue, and years' > worth of research impact have already been > needlessly lost waiting > for it. ALPSP has given no grounds whatsoever for > continuing this > delay for one moment longer. It has merely aired a > doomsday scenario > of its own imagination and then adduced 'evidence' > in its support > that is obviously irrelevant and defeasible.What is > certain is that > research impact cannot be held hostage to > publishers' anxieties, > simply on the grounds of their subjective intensity. > > > ALPSP: "This is not best achieved by mandating the > earliest > > possible self-archiving, and thus forcing the > adoption of untried > > and uncosted publishing practices." > > Self-archiving in October 2005 is not 'the earliest > possible > self-archiving' It is self-archiving that is already > at least a > decade overdue. And it has nothing to do with > untried and uncosted > publishing practices: Self-archiving is not a > publishing practice > at all; it is a researcher practice. And it has been > tried and > tested -- with great success and great benefits for > research progress > -- for over 15 years now. What is needed today is > more self-archiving > -- 100% -- not more delay. > > Or does the 'earliest possible' here refer not to > when the RCUK > self-archiving mandate is at last implemented, but > how early the > published article should be self-archived? If so, > the answer from > the point of view of research impact and progress is > unambiguous: > The final draft should be self-archived and made > accessible to all > potential users immediately upon acceptance for > publication (prefinal > preprint drafts even earlier, if the author wishes). > No research > usage or progress should be held back arbitrarily > for 3, 6, 12 or > more months, for any reason whatsoever. > > It cannot be stressed enough just how crucial it is > for RCUK to > resist any pressure to impose or allow any sort of > access-denial > period, of any length, during which unpaid access to > research > findings would be embargoed -- findings that the > RCUK has paid for, > with public money, so that they can be immediately > reported, used, > applied and built upon, for the benefit of the > public that paid for > it, not so that they can be embargoed, for the > benefit of assuaging > publishers' subjective fears about 'disaster > scenarios' for which > there does not exist a shred of objective evidence. > Any delay that > is allowed amounts to an embargo on research > productivity and > progress, at the expense of the interests of the > tax-paying public. > That is exactly what happened recently to the US > National Institutes > of Health's public access policy, setting US > research access and > impact back several years. > > Fortunately, there is a simple compromise that will > completely > immunise the RCUK mandate from any possibility of > being rendered > ineffectual in this way: > > What all RCUK-funded researchers should be > required to self-archive > in their own Institutional Repositories (IRs) > immediately upon > acceptance for publication are: > > (1) each article's metadata > (author name, date, article title, journal name, > etc.). > > plus > > (2) each article's final draft (full-text) > > That fulfills the RCUK requirement. The > access-setting, however, > can then be given two options: > > (OA) Open Access > (both the metadata and the full-text are made > freely accessible to everyone webwide) > > or (IA) Institutional Access > (the metadata are freely accessible webwide but > the full-text is > made accessible only to the fundee's > institution, its employees, > and its funders, such as the RCUK and RAE, for > record-keeping, > grant-fulfillment and performance-assessment > purposes). > > The RCUK fundee is strongly encouraged (but not > required) to set > access to OA immediately. > > As 90% of journals have already given article > self-archiving their > official green light, 90% of articles can have their > access set to > OA immediately. For the remaining 10%, the author > can set access > to IA initially, but of course each article's > metadata (author, > title, journal, etc.) will immediately be openly > accessible webwide > to all would-be users, just as the metadata of the > OA 90% are. > That's enough data so that would-be users can > immediately email the > author for an 'eprint' (the author's final draft) if > they cannot > afford to access the journal version. The author can > keep emailing > eprints to each would-be user until either the > remaining 10% of > journals update their policy or the author tires of > doing all those > needless keystrokes and sets articleaccess to OA. In > the meanwhile, > however, 100% of RCUK-funded research will be > immediately accessible > webwide, 90% of it directly, and 10% of it with > author mediation, > maximising its access and impact. Nature can take > care of the rest > at its leisure. > > > ALPSP: "It is clearly unrealistic to consult > adequately with all > > those likely to be affected over the summer > holiday period, and > > we therefore urge you to extend the consultation > period and to > > defer, for at least 12 months, the introduction of > any mandate > > for authors to self-archive. In the meantime, we > would like to > > take up RCUK's expressed willingness to engage > with both publishers > > and learned societies, beginning with a meeting in > early September > > with representatives of ALPSP; we propose one of > the following > > dates: 5th September, 6th September, 7th > September, 8th September > > We look forward to a reply at your earliest > convenience. Yours > > sincerely Sally Morris, Chief Executive" > > The consultation has been going on since long before > 'the summer > holiday period' and there has already been far more > delay and far > more research impact needlessly lost than anyone can > possibly > justify. Some members of the publishing community > are quite leisurely > about continuing to prolong this needless loss of > research impact > and progress in order to continue debating, but the > research community > itself is not (as indicated, for example, by the > ill-fated demand > for open access -- by a deadline of September 1, > 2001 -- on the > part of the 34,000 researchers who signed the PloS > petition). > > RCUK should go ahead and implement its > immediate-self-archiving > mandate, with no further delay or deferral, and then > meet with ALPSP > and other interested parties to discuss and plan how > the UK > Institutional Repositories can collaborate with > journals and their > publishers in pooling download and citation > statistics, and in other > other ways of sharing the benefits of maximising UK > research access > and impact. Any further pertinent matters and > developments can be > discussed as well -- but not at the cost of further > delaying what > is indisputably the optimal and inevitable (and long > overdue) outcome > for research, researchers, their institutions, and > their funders > -- and for the public, which funds the research on > the understanding > that its use and applications are meant to be > maximised to benefit > the public's interests, not minimised to protect > other parties' > from imaginary threats to their interests. > > (A shorter UK version of this critique -- > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/18-guid.html > -- > has been co-signed by the following UK senior > researchers [in > boldface] and sent as hard copy to the recipients of > the ALPSP > statement. The present longer analysis has also been > co-signed by > some prominent international supporters of the RCUK > initiative.) > > Tim Berners-Lee (UK, Southampton & US, MIT) > Dave De Roure (UK, Southampton) > Stevan Harnad (UK, Southampton & Canada, UQaM) > Derek Law (UK, Strathclyde) > Peter Murray-Rust (UK, Cambridge) > Charles Oppenheim (UK, Loughborough) > Nigel Shadbolt (UK, Southampton) > Yorick Wilks (UK, Sheffield) > > Subbiah Arunachalam (India, MSRF) > Helene Bosc (France, INRA, ret.) > Fred Friend (UK, University College, London) > Andrew Odlyzko (US, University of Minnesota) > Peter Suber (US, Earlham) > > References > > 1. Swan, A (2004). Re: Open Access vs. NIH Back > Access and Nature's > Back-Sliding. American Scientist Open Access Forum: > 3 February 2005. > > 2. Personal communication from a UK University > Library Director: > 'I know of no HE library where librarians make > cancellation or > subscription decisions. Typically they say to the > department/faculty > 'We have to save X,000" from your share of the > serials budget: what > do you want to cut?'. These are seen as academic > --not metrics-driven > -- judgements, and no librarian makes those academic > judgements, > as they are indefensible in Senate' [S]uch decisions > are almost > always wholly subjective, not objective, and have > nothing to do > with the existence or otherwise of repositories.' > > 3. The society lady: an interview with Elizabeth > Marincola. Open > Access Now: 6 October 2003 > > 4. Walker, T (2002) Two societies show how to profit > by providing > free access. Learned Publishing 15: 279-284. > > Copies of ALPSP open letter were also sent to: > The Lord Sainsbury > of Turville Parliamentary Under Secretary of > State for Science > and Innovation Department of Trade and Industry, > Professor Sir > Keith O'Nions Director General of Research > Councils Office of > Science and Technology Dr. Astrid Wissenburg > RCUK Secretariat, > Professor Colin Blakemore Medical Research > Council, Frances > Marsden Arts and Humanities Research Council, > Professor Julia > Goodfellow Biotechnology and Biological Research > Council, > Professor Richard Wade Particle Physics & > Astronomy Research > Council, Professor Alan Thorpe Natural > Environment Research > Council, Professor John O'Reilly Engineering and > Physical > Sciences Research Council, Professor John Wood > Council for the > Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, > Andrea Powell Chair > of ALPSP Council, (Director of Publishing, CAB > International) > ___________________________________________________________ Does your mail provider give you FREE antivirus protection? Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Mysore University Students Association Formation
by harinarayana＠lisc.uni-mysore.ac.in 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

In a recently held meeting of the faculty members and students of MLISc and MIM, Mysore University Library and Information Science Students Association (MULISSA) for the year 2005-06 was formed. The following are the office bearers for the current batch: President Prof. Shalini R. Urs, Chairperson, Dept of Library and Information Science, University of Mysore, Mysore Faculty Advisor Dr. N.S. Harinarayana,Dept of Library and Information Science, University of Mysore, Mysore Secretary Sri. Surendra C.S, 3rd Semester MLISc Joint Secretary Sri. Sunil Kumar, 3rd Semester MLISc Treasurer Kum. Smitha A P, 1st Semester MLISc Members Kum. Rekha H R, 3rd Semester MLISc Kum. Chaitra M, 3rd Semester MIM Sri. Siddalingaswamy B 1st Semester MLISc Sri. Nagashayana M V 1st Semester MLISc The inauguration of the MULISSA has been organized on the Friday, August 26, 2005 at 4 PM at the Department of Library and Information Science. Prof. H.S. Umesh, Principal, Saradavilas Teachers College, University of Mysore, Mysore has kindly agreed to inaugurate the association's activities for the current year. All are cardially invited. N.S.Harinarayana Faculty Advisor

1 0

InfoVision 2005
by venky 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

The count down for dating with InfoVision 2005 - www.infovision2005.org -- has begun. This is the first ever global Summit in India for practicing Information Professionals of different hues from the different segments - libraries, industry, and the academia. It is a good opportunity for the LIS Professionals to listen to and interact with people from other information professions. Information handling is inescapably dominated by IT today and going to be more so in the converging digital world. The event like InfoVision Summit is the right kind of opportunity to understand the information world from many different perspectives. Join at InfoVision to expand your horizon of Information World. PS: Academic organizations are given concessional rate of registration. Dr. S. Venkadesan JRD Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bangalore-560012 The count down for dating with InfoVision 2005 http://www.infovision2005.org/ www.infovision2005.org -- has begun. This is the first ever global Summit in India for practicing Information Professionals of different hues from the different segments - libraries, industry, and the academia. It is a good opportunity for the LIS Professionals to listen to and interact with people from other information professions. Information handling is inescapably dominated by IT today and going to be more so in the converging digital world. The event like InfoVision Summit is the right kind of opportunity to understand the information world from many different perspectives. Join at InfoVision to expand your horizon of Information World. PS: Academic organizations are given concessional rate of registration. Dr. S. Venkadesan JRD Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bangalore-560012

1 0

Candidates for network management (fwd)
by I.R.N.Goudar 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 13:39:55 +0530 (IST) From: Dr.Dinah Geethalathai <dinah(a)css.nal.res.in> To: goudar(a)css.nal.res.in Subject: candidates for network management Dear Sir, Consequent to our telephonic conversation this morning I am sending my requirements for a suitable candidate to work with me as Project Assistant in the area of Network Security/Network Management. Qualifications : B.E. (Computer Science) or B.E. (Electronics & Communication) with knowledge of Networking Salary : Rs.6000/- p.m. With warm regards, C. DINAH GEETHALATHAI Head, Computer Support Services National Aerospace Laboratories Bangalore - 560017 Tel: 080-25086015

1 0

InfoWatch Jul-Aug 2005
by M.R Lalitha 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

Dear LIS-Forum member, The July-August 2005 combined issue of InfoWatch is now online, bringing you the details of new Internet sites related to Science and Engineering. You can access the complete issue on the NCSI Web server at the URL : http://www.ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/infowatch/iw.php You will also find earlier issues of InfoWatch here. For your convenience, the table of contents is given below. If you wish to be on the mailing list of InfoWatch to receive the complete issue by e-mail, let us know. Also mention your format preference - html or text. Regards -Lalitha M.R (lalitha(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ InfoWatch Tracking Networked Scientific Information Sources and Services (An electronic update service brought to you by NCSI) Jul-Aug 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In This Issue: 1. BioCyc - A collection of pathway/genome databases 2. Corrosion Doctors' Web site [Educational information modules in corrosion science and engineering] 3. ElectronicsInfoline - Free electronics schematics from around the world 4. Encyclopedia of Life classification (EOL) [Proteome database, analysis and visualization tools, genomics and sequence analysis] 5. Encyclopedia of sustainable development 6. Freewares in chemistry from Advanced Chemistry Development Lab 7. Gene Map Annotator and Pathway Profiler - GenMAPP [A tool for bioinformatics community] 8. i-mass.com - International Mass spcetrometry web resource 9. itmWEB - information technology management WEB 10. KurzweilAI.Net [A source for artificial intelligence research based on man-machine merger] 11. Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA) - NASA's data center for Cosmic Microwave Background research 12. MEMS and nanotechnology clearinghouse - A information resource for the MEMS and Nanotechnology development community 13. OpenCores.org - Free open source IP codes and chip design 14. OSdata.com - Server Operating System technical comparison 15. Pauling File- Basic database for crystal structures 16. Pioneering EE patents 17. Plate motion calculator [Program to calculate the tectonic plate motion at any location on Earth] 18. ResearchChannel - A consortium of research universities and corporate research divisions 19. Reshaping scholarly communication [Alternatives for cost effective publishing] 20. WindowsNetworking.com - World of windows networking ------------------------------------------------------------------------ About InfoWatch : InfoWatch is a monthly electronic newsletter, brought out by the National Centre for Science Information (NCSI) Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore - 560 012, INDIA. Information in the newsletter is collected and verified by NCSI staff.The newsletter aims to raise awareness of new sources of information on the Internet, particularly those which are relevant for higher education and research. Some items may be of relevance only to the IISc community.Resources reported here have been taken from various discussion lists and other network tools and no special claims are made for accuracy or originality. Most of the sources cited in the newsletter were checked at the time of publication, however it is possible that some of the resources are no longer available. We welcome comments about the newsletter and suggestions for resources to be featured. Please e-mail your comments to Infowatch editors: Ms. K. Thulasi (thulasi(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in) & Ms. M. R. Lalitha (lalitha(a)ncsi.iisc.ernet.in) ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

apprentice-training programme in Special Library at bangalore
by Mailing List Manager 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 05:31:46 -0700 (PDT) From: alex arun <antony_alex2k(a)yahoo.com> Dear Friends, There is an apprentice-training programme in Special Library at bangalore. Those who interested please go through following message Alex Christ College Greetings from DVK Central Library, Bangalore! Let me introduce my institution and myself. I am Fr. John Neelankavil, working as the librarian here in Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram Central Library, Bangalore. We have a library with around 45,000 Square Feet area with almost all the modern facilities. We have a plan to start training cum apprenticeship programme to the graduates and postgraduates of Library and Information Science. The calculated duration will be of one year and we will able to support the students with an attractive stipend. For more details:E-Mail: dvklibrary(a)yahoo.com Yours truly, Fr. John Neelankavil, CMI Library Director

1 0

Google starts online talk service
by ++ Mukesh Anand ++ 24 Aug '05

24 Aug '05

Google starts online talk service Google, the world's most used search engine, is set to take on online voice and instant messaging service providers such as Skype, Microsoft and Yahoo. The firm has released a free service called Google Talk, which lets e-mail account holders talk to each other via a PC, microphone and speakers. Google Talk will be based on open software, meaning the firm will allow its technology to be integrated into other websites and applications. A trial version of Google Talk can be found at: http://www.google.com/talk/ ++ Mukesh ++ Google starts online talk service Google, the world's most used search engine, is set to take on online voice and instant messaging service providers such as Skype, Microsoft and Yahoo. The firm has released a free service called Google Talk, which lets e-mail account holders talk to each other via a PC, microphone and speakers. Google Talk will be based on open software, meaning the firm will allow its technology to be integrated into other websites and applications. A trial version of Google Talk can be found at: http://www.google.com/talk/ ++ Mukesh ++

1 0

Google's new search tool
by Mailing List Manager 24 Aug '05

24 Aug '05

Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 11:41:19 +0300 From: Jayadev P Hiremath <jayadevph(a)gmail.com> San Francisco, reuters: Google Inc, on Monday, unveiled a new computer and Web search tool using self-updating navigation and personal information software that puts it in more direct competition with Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL. The creator of the world's most popular Web search system said it was branching out beyond pure search to help users manage e-mail, instant messages, news headlines and music. Google Desktop 2, as the new search software is known, helps users locate information stored on their own hard disk, on office network drives they may use and on the Web.

1 0

request for an article
by Mailing List Manager 24 Aug '05

24 Aug '05

Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:23:23 -0700 (PDT) From: vijaya kumara <vijayakumar71(a)yahoo.co.in> Dear Professionals One of our research scholar urgently needs the folowing review article, if any one of you find the same, kindly provide us or let me know where we can get it. Amylolytic enzymes: molecular aspects of their properties. 2001 Mar;20(1):7-32. Review. PMID: 11508823 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Authors :Horvathova V, Janecek S, Sturdik E. With warm regards Dr. Vijayakumar M Vijayakumar M, HOD - Library, MVJ College of Engineering (an ISO Certified Institution) Channasandra, Bangalore - 560 067, Karnataka, India Tel:+91-80-28452324 Ext. 234 library(a)mvjeducation.com or coolvg(a)gmail.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page --0-829267109-1124519003=:36915 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; name="NCSI-Attachment-Warning.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="NCSI-Attachment-Warning.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a message from the MailScanner E-Mail Virus Protection Service ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The original e-mail message contained potentially dangerous content, which has been removed for your safety. The content is dangerous as it is often used to spread viruses or to gain personal or confidential information from you, such as passwords or credit card numbers. If you wish to receive a copy of the original email, please e-mail helpdesk and include the whole of this message in your request. Alternatively, you can call them, with the contents of this message to hand when you call. At Sat Aug 20 12:35:41 2005 the content filters said: MailScanner: Found a script in HTML message Note to Help Desk: Look on the NCSI MailScanner in /var/spool/MailScanner/q= uarantine/20050820 (message j7K75YZV022790). --=20 Postmaster MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support --0-829267109-1124519003=:36915--

1 0

IATLIS ^V Motiwale LIS Teacher Award 2005- call for nominations
by Mailing List Manager 24 Aug '05

24 Aug '05

Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:33:43 +0100 (BST) From: Prof. N. Laxman Rao. <naglaxman(a)yahoo.com> Nominations are invited form the teachers of Library & Information Science for the award of IATLIS � Motiwale Best LIS Teacher Award 2005. Executive Council Members of IATLIS are not eligible for being nominated for the award. The nominee should have at least 10 years of teaching experience at the post-graduate level and should be presently in service. A person can receive the award only once and one person can nominate only one LIS Teacher at a time. The nominations have to be accompanied by Bio-Data, list of publications, details of professional activities, achievements / contribution to LIS Profession including contribution to the IATLIS. An Award Committee will consider the nominations. The award will not be given in case majority of the Committee Members feel that the nominations are not worth considering. Nomination in quadruplicate with all the required documents should reach Dr. S. Sudarshan Rao, Dept. of Library and Information Science, Osmania University, Hyderabad-500 007 on or before 17th October, 2005. Prof.N.LAXMAN RAO, Dept.of Library & Information Science, Osmania University, HYDERABAD- 500 007 (INDIA) President, Indian Association of Teachers in Library and Information Science (IATLIS). Ph:+91-40-27171565 (res): +91-40- 27682290 (off) 9246547599 (Mobile) e:mail-- naglaxman(a)yahoo.com OR naglaxman(a)indiatimes.com ---------------------------------

1 0