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

On the advantages of OA
by Subbiah Arunachalam 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Friends in Africa: Universities and research labs in Africa needs OA more than anyone else. Friends of OA would like to hear your voices supporting and demanding OA. Best wishes. Arun ----- Response to Olivieri In the August 27 issue of the Times Higher Education Supplement, Stephen Pinfield and Paul Ayris have a letter to the editor responding to Rene Olivieri's article of August 19, Making a pig's ear of an unscientific free-for-all. Excerpt: It is ironic that Rene Olivieri's criticism of supporters of open access...often lapsed into the polemical when this was a label he was trying to pin on his opponents. Despite his calls for the current debate to be more scientific, he omitted to mention many of the relevant facts. In particular, he failed to acknowledge the anomalies of the current system of research publishing. Universities generate research papers, give them away free of charge to publishers and then buy them back at high prices. Researchers give away their services as authors, referees and editorial board members all free of charge and yet their institutions have to buy back the value they have added. Prices are high because (as the Office of Fair Trading has observed) price competition does not properly operate in the academic periodicals market. This means institutions cannot afford to purchase all of the periodicals they would like and so researchers do not have easy access to all of the literature they need. Furthermore, society in general cannot get access to research funded by public money. Researchers want their work to be read and cited, and yet the impact their work can make is being limited. The rise of the Web, which makes wide distribution of content quick and easy, is making the system - which was developed a paper-based world - look anachronistic. Open access has the potential to overcome many of these problems. It is not just an interesting theory. There are a number of working examples, ranging from institutional databases of research papers to new peer reviewed journals. Many mainstream publishers are themselves experimenting with open access models and funding bodies are investing in experiments and studies to see what the future holds. Increasingly, research funders and governments are coming to see the benefits. Better communication means better science. Widening access will benefit the scientific community but will also bring benefits to health care, knowledge transfer and the public understanding of science. Empirical evidence of these benefits is beginning to emerge. Further work should be encouraged for the benefit of the academic community and society in general. Rather than try to turn back the oncoming tide, publishers such as Mr Olivieri would be better advised to ride the wave. Stephen Pinfield is the Deputy Chief Information Officer and Director of Research and Learning Resources at the University of Nottingham. Paul Ayris is the Director of Library Services and Copyright Officer at University College London. Friends in Africa: Universities and research labs in Africa needs OA more than anyone else. Friends of OA would like to hear your voices supporting and demanding OA. Best wishes. Arun ----- Response to Olivieri [A] In the August 27 issue of the http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/ Times Higher Education Supplement , Stephen Pinfield and Paul Ayris have a letter to the editor responding to http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_08_14_fosblogarchive.html#a11245643… Rene Olivieri's article of August 19, http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2024070 Making a pig's ear of an unscientific free-for-all . Excerpt: It is ironic that Rene Olivieri's criticism of supporters of open access...often lapsed into the polemical when this was a label he was trying to pin on his opponents. Despite his calls for the current debate to be more scientific, he omitted to mention many of the relevant facts. In particular, he failed to acknowledge the anomalies of the current system of research publishing. Universities generate research papers, give them away free of charge to publishers and then buy them back at high prices. Researchers give away their services as authors, referees and editorial board members all free of charge and yet their institutions have to buy back the value they have added. Prices are high because (as the Office of Fair Trading has observed) price competition does not properly operate in the academic periodicals market. This means institutions cannot afford to purchase all of the periodicals they would like and so researchers do not have easy access to all of the literature they need. Furthermore, society in general cannot get access to research funded by public money. Researchers want their work to be read and cited, and yet the impact their work can make is being limited. The rise of the Web, which makes wide distribution of content quick and easy, is making the system which was developed a paper-based world look anachronistic. Open access has the potential to overcome many of these problems. It is not just an interesting theory. There are a number of working examples, ranging from institutional databases of research papers to new peer reviewed journals. Many mainstream publishers are themselves experimenting with open access models and funding bodies are investing in experiments and studies to see what the future holds. Increasingly, research funders and governments are coming to see the benefits. Better communication means better science. Widening access will benefit the scientific community but will also bring benefits to health care, knowledge transfer and the public understanding of science. Empirical evidence of these benefits is beginning to emerge. Further work should be encouraged for the benefit of the academic community and society in general. Rather than try to turn back the oncoming tide, publishers such as Mr Olivieri would be better advised to ride the wave. Stephen Pinfield is the Deputy Chief Information Officer and Director of Research and Learning Resources at the University of Nottingham. Paul Ayris is the Director of Library Services and Copyright Officer at University College London.

1 0

Infovision promotion
by Mailing List Manager 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

KM thoughts at InfoVision 2005 Knowledge Management is a discipline, which is in the limelight today. But, traditional LIS profession has been in the business of KM since the very beginning. Besides cross-functional collaboration for organizational strategic impact, the processes of classification and cataloguing systems form the basis of KM. Content management, one of the most critical aspects of KM is an extension and expansion of information processes in libraries. InfoVision - www.infovision2005.org <http://www.infovision2005.org/> is bringing a world-renowned expert in KM - Dr. Richard McDermoott. ( http://www.mcdermottconsulting.com <http://www.mcdermottconsulting.com/> ). Dr Dermott is a widely sought after speaker in the KM world. Join us at InfoVision to know what is new in the world of KM With Regards, Kottai Head - KM Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab

1 0

coverage of OA documents by search engines
by Mailing List Manager 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:09:09 +0530 (IST) From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun(a)mssrf.res.in> Friends: According to a recent posting by Eberhard Hilf, "the scientific OA documents on local institutes servers are barely covered by retrieval engines" and DOAJ lists only a part of OA journals. The OA supporters should coax search engines to cover OA documents in all OA repositories and persuade DOAJ and other similar services to cover OA journals far more comprehensively. Arun

1 0

Fw: [IAMSLIC:5359] H index to quantify an individual's scientific output
by M.P.Tapaswi 27 Aug '05

27 Aug '05

Sorry for cross-posting but should be of interest to the ones interested in citation studies. - Tapaswi ----- Original Message ----- From: Susan Berteaux To: iamslic(a)ucdavis.edu Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 1:37 AM Subject: [IAMSLIC:5359] H index to quantify an individual's scientific output This morning a faculty member asked about a new factor which he had just read about in Science that measures the impact or stature of individual scientists. It's called the H Index after Jorge Hirsch who proposed it. For any researcher the h number is the largest number for which it is true that the researcher has h publications with at least h citations. For example, an eminent physicist has the very high h number of 110 because he has 110 publications with at least 110 citations. The article goes on to say that the h index can be easily found using WoK and then sorting by "times cited". There's more information at: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/9/1 This page also provides a link to the original article by Hirsch, "An index to quantify an individual's scientific output". Note that the examples given were from a 20 year backfile so I'm not sure how that translates if your backfiles don't go back that far. -- Susan ============================================== Susan S. Berteaux...Head, Science & Technology Library Syracuse University...Syracuse, NY 13244-2010 Ph: 315/443-9766...Fax: 315/443-5549...Email: ssbertea(a)syr.edu Sorry for cross-posting but should be of interest to the ones interested in citation studies. - Tapaswi ----- Original Message ----- From: mailto:Ssbertea@syr.edu Susan Berteaux To: mailto:iamslic@ucdavis.edu iamslic(a)ucdavis.edu Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 1:37 AM Subject: [IAMSLIC:5359] H index to quantify an individual's scientific output This morning a faculty member asked about a new factor which he had just read about in Science that measures the impact or stature of individual scientists. It's called the H Index after Jorge Hirsch who proposed it. For any researcher the h number is the largest number for which it is true that the researcher has h publications with at least h citations. For example, an eminent physicist has the very high h number of 110 because he has 110 publications with at least 110 citations. The article goes on to say that the h index can be easily found using WoK and then sorting by "times cited". There's more information at: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/9/1 http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/9/1 This page also provides a link to the original article by Hirsch, "An index to quantify an individual's scientific output". Note that the examples given were from a 20 year backfile so I'm not sure how that translates if your backfiles don't go back that far. -- Susan ============================================== Susan S. Berteaux...Head, Science & Technology Library Syracuse University...Syracuse, NY 13244-2010 Ph: 315/443-9766...Fax: 315/443-5549...Email: mailto:ssbertea@syr.edu ssbertea(a)syr.edu

1 0

Information
by habiburrehman khan 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

Dear Members I would like to know if Jharkhand,Chattisgarh and Uttaranchal have state central public library. Habibur Rahman Khan Librarian Ingraham Institute,Aligarh Mob:09412065835 E-Mail:habibamu@yahoo.co.in Dear Members I would like to know if Jharkhand,Chattisgarh and Uttaranchal have state central public library. Habibur Rahman Khan Librarian Ingraham Institute,Aligarh Mob:09412065835 E-Mail:habibamu@yahoo.co.in http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/signa… http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigimpress.cgi/www.rediff.com/sig…

1 0

UNDP-APDIP Launches New Series: APDIPe-Notes]
by Satish Munnolli 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

appologies cross posting UNDP-APDIP is pleased to announce the launch of a new series entitled "APDIP e-Note" The first two APDIP e-Notes are now available on our website: www.apdip.net/apdipenote/ ======================================================================= APDIP e-Notes are brief documents that present analyses of specific issues related to information and communication technologies (ICTs) for sustainable human development in the Asia-Pacific region. This series introduces readers to the who, what, where, why and how of a wide range of current issues related to ICTs such as e-governance, free and open source software, ICTs and poverty alleviation, Internet governance and many others. The first two APDIP e-Notes are now available on our website www.apdip.net/apdipenote/ * APDIP e-Note 1 - Voices from Asia Pacific: Internet governance for sustainable human development * APDIP e-Note 2 - Do Governments Actually Believe that ICT Can Help Alleviate Poverty? A perspective from Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers In these PDF documents, the bullet points in the blue box are clickable and will take you to the related sections of the e-Notes. The URLs are also clickable. APDIP e-Notes are being developed by the United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP), based at the UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok, Thailand. UNDP-APDIP also brings out the following series that might interest you: - Digital Review of Asia Pacific offers comprehensive reports and useful analyses of how 29 economies/countries are using ICTs in business, government and civil society. The latest edition, 2005-2006, details developments and challenges facing the ICT industry in the Asia-Pacific region. It is an essential guide for ICT-related policy development, planning, research and project implementation. - e-Primers for the Information Economy, Society, and Polity Series introduces concepts, issues and trends surrounding the information economy. Titles include: e-Commerce and e-Business; e-Government; Genes, Technology and Policy; ICTs for Poverty Alleviation; ICT in Education; the Information Age; Legal and Regulatory Issues; and Nets, Webs and the Information Infrastructure. Coming soon is one on Internet Governance. - e-Primers on Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) Series serves as introductory documents to FOSS issues. Titles include: FOSS: A General Introduction; FOSS: Education; FOSS: Government Policy; and FOSS: Localization. A draft of the FOSS: Open Standards e-Primer is now available online for public review and feedback at: http://www.apdip.net/news/foss-open-standards-primer-draft - UNDP-APDIP ICT4D Series seeks to provide concrete research and analysis on the strengths and weaknesses that are evident in ICT4D policies across the region. It focuses on applications of ICT policies and its impact in accelerating social and economic development. All UNDP-APDIP publications are available online at: www.apdip.net/publications We would welcome any feedback on our publications. Please send feedback and queries to: Christine Apikul Programme Specialist, UNDP-APDIP christine(a)apdip.net ------------ ***GKD is solely supported by EDC, a Non-Profit Organization*** To post a message, send it to: <gkd(a)mail.edc.org> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <majordomo(a)mail.edc.org>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Wanadoo vous informe que cet e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail. Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/81 - Release Date: 24/08/2005 -- ================================================================= Dr. Michel J. Menou Consultant in ICT policies and Knowledge & Information Management Adviser of Somos@Telecentros board http://www.tele-centros.org Member of the founding steering committee of Telecenters of the Americas Partnership http://www.tele-centers.net/ B.P. 15 49350 Les Rosiers sur Loire, France Email: Michel.Menou(a)wanadoo.fr Phone: +33 (0)2 41511043 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ciber/peoplemenou.php ================================================================== -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/81 - Release Date: 24/08/2005 _______________________________________________ Sigiii-l mailing list Sigiii-l(a)asis.org http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigiii-l Satish S Munnolli Librarian ACTREC Kharghar Navi Mumbai

1 0

SALIS - Seminar on 'Library - Centre for Knowledge Managment - announcement
by Arunachalam Hariharan 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

Seminar on 'Library - Center for Knowledge Management' Jointly Organised By Society for the Advancement of Library and Information Science (SALIS) Tirunelveli Chapter & Heavy Water Plant, Tuticorin Department of Atomic Energy Government of India Date: 17.09.2005 Time:9.30 A.M. 5.30 P.M Venue Heavy Water Plant Colony Guest House Tuticorin 628 007 About the Seminar - Knowledge Management(KM) is one of the emerging disciplines and being applied in many areas including Libraries. Libraries are becoming KM centers in order to deliver the right information to the organization in right time to achieve the organizational goal. The objective of the seminar is to focus the attention of working LIS professionals to know about: -Knowledge Management: overview -KM components and tools -Benefits of KM -KM Resources -Services in KM Centres -KM skills for Librarians -To enable institutions to initiate building KM Centres in Libraries -Role of Librarians as Knowledge Managers Faculty Experienced faculty members from reputed institutions Eligibility Library and Information Science professionals Course Fee Rs.100/- Seminar Co-ordinator Ms. K. Vinitha Librarian, National Engineering College, Kovilpatti Programme 08.30-09.30 AM Registration 09.30-10.30 AM Inaugural session Inauguration Shri M.S.N.Sastry Chief General Manager, Heavy Water Plant, Tuticorin Keynote Address 10.30-11.00 AM Tea Break 11.00-11.45 PM Role of DAE in Quality of life 11.45-12.30 PM Technical Session I KM: overview 12.30-01.15 PM Technical Session II KM components and tools 01.15-02.00 PM Lunch Break 02.00-02.45 PM Technical Session III KM Initiatives 02.45-03.30 PM Technical Session IV Setting-up KM Centres in Libraries 03.30-03.45 PM Tea Break 03.45-04.30 PM Technical Session V Role of Librarians as Knowledge Manager 04.30-05.30 PM Valediction Registration Form Name : Designation : Organisation : Address for : Communication E-mail : Tel: (off) Res: Are you a member of SALIS : Yes/No Fee particulars Enclosed Rs.------- DD/Cheque bearing no. --------dated --- drawn in favour of SALIS payable at Chennai ** Cash also may be accepted in person ** Outstation payment shall be made by DD only Last Date for the receipt of registration form is 12 09.2005 Signature of the Signature of the Sponsoring Authority participant Completed registration form(s) can be sent to (multiple copies can be Xeroxed): Mr. N.Somasundaram Scientific Officer(Library) & Organising Secretary Heavy Water Plant HWP Colony P.O. Tuticorin 628 007 Phone : Off :0461-2355057 Extn 4218 , Res 0461 2331925, Mobile: 9443295564 E-mail: library(a)tuticorin.heavywaterboard.org ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

1 0

Journal article required - Reg.
by Sasireka Govindaraj 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

Dear Professionals, One of our research scholar is in urgent need of the articles below and we would be grateful if electronic copies of the same could be sent at the earliest. subject: Mechanical Engineering An energy-distribution strategy in fat-cutiing wire EDM, "Journal of Materials Processing Technology", Volume 55, Issue 3-4, December 1995, Pages 380-390. Y.F.Luo We would be most grateful for your kind help. Kind Regards G.Sasireka Librarian Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Engineering College Perambalur - 621 212 Tamilnadu Regards, G.Sasireka ____________________________________________________ Send a rakhi to your brother, buy gifts and win attractive prizes. Log on to http://in.promos.yahoo.com/rakhi/index.html

1 0

PLoS journals - friendly to developing countries
by Subbiah Arunachalam 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

Friends: Here is a note from Prof. Peter Suber. Arun More OSI support for PLoS memberships from developing countries I would have blogged this July 20 press release earlier but I didn't discover it until today: The Open Society Institute (OSI) and the Public Library of Science (PLoS) are pleased to announce the continuation of their PLoS Institutional Memberships for developing and transitional countries. Both OSI and PLoS are committed to promoting scholarly communication through open access publishing and support for PLoS Institutional Memberships is one way we can work together on this globally important issue. Authors affiliated with OSI-sponsored Member Institutions receive a complete waiver on the publication charge for all PLoS journals. So if your paper is accepted for publication, you pay nothing, and your paper will be published and made available for readers throughout the world.

1 0

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