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

RE: The Sabo Bill and Open Access
by Mailing List Manager 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:54:27 +0530 From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun(a)mssrf.res.in> Friends: Here is an interview with Robert Terry, Senior Policy Advisor at the Wellcome Trust, UK. It appeared in the latest issue of Open Access Now, a part of The Scientist. I thought that this should be read widely in India. Regards. Arun ------------------ http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?page=features&issue=18 Wellcome support for Open Access Funding bodies play a major role in the Open Access debate as they provide the money that pays for scientific research. Funders have the right to influence how their money is spent and how research results are disseminated. The Wellcome Trust is the UK's leading biomedical charity, spending over �400 million (over US$700 million) each year on research. Robert Terry, Senior Policy Advisor at the Wellcome Trust, talked to Open Access Now about why the Trust supports Open Access. The Wellcome Trust spends a lot of money supporting biomedical research in the UK and around the globe. Over the next five years the Trust expects to fund top-quality research to the tune of �2 billion (around US$3.6 billion). It seems only reasonable that the Trust be interested in how scientific findings are published and shared. To guide its decision-making the Trust commissioned two studies of the economics of scientific publishing. The results were so compelling that the Trust issued a position statement (see Open Access Now, November 3, 2003 <http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/news/?issue=8>) expressing unequivocal support for Open Access models. "The Wellcome Trust supports open and unrestricted access to the published output of research, including the open access model, as a fundamental part of its charitable mission and a public benefit to be encouraged wherever possible," said the statement. Robert Terry is the Senior Policy Advisor in the Strategic Planning and Policy Unit of the Wellcome Trust. "The unit is responsible for horizon scanning, policy and strategy on behalf of the Trust," explains Terry. As well as directly funding researchers, the Trust runs two libraries; one is a history of medicine library and the other is an information service for the general public. "The advisory committee of these libraries first raised the question of Open Access a few years ago. I led a small in-house group that began to research the issue. It became clear that one of the things that we didn't understand (and we wondered whether other people understood or not) was the real economics of the market." "In fact researchers on the whole are not directly paying for anything. There are really very few people in the biomedical research area that are paying for their own research. It's actually funders like ourselves and the research councils who are paying," Terry reminds us. "The funding bodies are the last players to get involved in Open Access. There needs to be a really significant step in raising consciousness among the funders, to see whether or not we can get things to change." The economics of publishing The Trust commissioned SQW, an economic and management consultancy company, to investigate the scientific publishing sector. In September 2003, the Trust published the results in a report entitled 'An Economic Analysis of Scientific Research Publishing <http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/awtpubrepeas.html>'. Terry agrees that many people had begun to examine these issues, but the report provided an in-depth insight into how the economics of the scientific publishing industry influence the way in which scientific knowledge is disseminated. "I think that it was perhaps the first time that it had been pulled together in quite that way," says Terry. "For someone coming to this topic for the first time it pulls everything together in a fairly straightforward way. The report was certainly highly influential in the Trust. It encouraged the Trust to come out and say that we now believe in Open Access publication." "When you look at it from an economic point of view it is clear that you have a failing market," explains Terry. "Researchers give away their research data free to journals that then retain copyright. Then researchers and the users of that information obtain the information via libraries. So it is libraries that are paying the cost of re-accessing that information once it has been peer-reviewed and published. What we end up with is a very dysfunctional market," he notes. "The producers and the consumers are completely separated from any market forces, hence subscriptions can rise year on year and the people who are demanding the product are more or less oblivious. When you review the last ten years you come to fairly shocking figures of rises of 200% in journal subscription prices and the realization that certain commercial publishers are making large profits. And that is money that is leaving the system. It's going to shareholders or to learned societies. As a funder, we have to start thinking about how money that we are pumping into the system is leaving the system for a completely different purpose from our mission. That's really what started to drive us. So we began to consider what the alternatives are and how this could be organized in a much better way." ------------------------ "As a funder, we have to start thinking about how money that we are pumping into the system is leaving the system for a completely different purpose from our mission." Robert Terry ------------------------ "We published our statement to say that we think that the system is not working well. It became clear to us that the dissemination of research is actually a research cost and that by delegating that activity to others (journals and their publishers) we have actually got locked into a very inefficient system. We felt that there must be better ways to share information and make the Internet as efficient as possible in the dissemination of research and increasing knowledge." Open Access saves money The Wellcome Trust committed itself to paying the costs of Open Access publishing and encouraging researchers to deposit their work in open archives. But Terry's group wanted to have a better understanding of the true costs involved in Open Access publishing and the alternative publishing models, so they commissioned a second study by SQW. "The second study basically filled in another gap in the evidence base," recalls Terry. "People were questioning whether authors-pays models (though in reality they are 'funder-pays' models) are efficient, economical and commercially viable. They expressed concern about the sustainability of these models. That's why we commissioned the second report which is about the actual costs involved in peer-reviewing research papers, managing manuscripts and dissemination on the Internet." The second Wellcome report 'Costs and Business Models in Scientific Research Publishing <http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/1/awtpubrepcos.html>' was published in April 2004. "I think that it was really interesting because we tried as much as possible to talk to commercial publishers, learned society publishers and Open Access publishers," says Terry. The report provides evidence that an author-pays model offers a viable alternative to subscription journals. The Trust concluded that "Open Access publishing should be able to deliver high-quality, peer-reviewed research at a cost that is significantly less than the traditional model while bringing with it a number of additional benefits." The report concluded that savings of up to 30% might be achieved. The research shows that publishing a research article in the traditional way costs between �800 and �1,500 (between US$1440 and US$2700). Under Open Access the cost is about 70% of that, at �550 to �1,100. "I feel fairly confident with what we have come up with," says Terry. "Nobody has actually disputed the figures; they might disagree with the conclusions, but they haven't disputed the figures. The savings could even be more, because the costs that we identified were the 'first-copy' costs." "If we move to an Open Access system it allows for interesting other models to start being used. For example, you might think about introducing a submission fee to cover the costs of peer review. That would suddenly reduce the publication costs down to around US$500-600 by having a very small submission charge." The idea is that a submission charge would be paid by authors of all articles that are peer-reviewed, rather than the situation at present where the only charges that are paid are from authors whose work is eventually published - so they, in effect subsidize the cost of rejecting articles. Terry reminds us that currently many journals have page charges and extra charges for color figures. "It seems to have been forgotten, or at least it is never mentioned by the commercial publishers, that authors have been paying page charges for years and these are often much higher figures than are talked about for Open Access." The need for increased advocacy "The rationale for doing these two studies was to move the whole debate away from the economic issues," says Terry. "In a sense, the economics don't matter in that it should be viable to move towards another system - and that system should be more efficient and less expensive. And on top of all that you get all the fantastic benefits that Open Access should allow: far wider dissemination, higher impact in terms of people reading and citing your work, and reducing the barriers to research. These barriers and publisher restrictions are a real impediment to science and the way that science needs to be done. The reports certainly got a lot of media attention. They brought the issue right into the broadsheets and the financial newspapers. So, I think that they helped to get people seriously engaged in the debate and thinking about viable alternative models." Terry dismisses many of the myths being voiced by the opponents of Open Access. "Some argue that if the system isn't broken don't fix it: we would argue that the system is broken," says Terry. "Another way to look at it is that it's an engine running on two cylinders as opposed to six - it still gets you along the road, but is it really working efficiently or taking you to the all places that you want to go. You have to ask yourself the question - what sort of money is leaving the system to support that inefficiency." Terry suggests that learned societies have to think harder about their goals. "Is making a surplus from the dissemination of research still a justified activity when it might actually be an impediment to research itself? I think that some of the learned societies have to start thinking about what their purpose is and who they serve." ---------------- "Another way to look at it is that it's an engine running on two cylinders as opposed to six: it still gets you along the road, but is it really working efficiently or taking you to the all places that you want to go?" Robert Terry --------------- "There's a lot of talk about initiatives such as HINARI, but researchers in developing countries are still paying higher subscription fees than their American counterparts," says Terry. (HINARI is an initiative to provide free, or low-cost, access to major biomedical journals to public institutions in developing countries; see Open Access Now 19 January 2004 <http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/www/?issue=12>.) "While Open Access won't immediately make life any easier, because of the digital divide, I think that in time it will help the system because true Open Access puts no restrictions on reproduction. Someone can download various papers, or even a whole journal if they want to, print it up and distribute if for no charge or for a small distribution charge. There are all sorts of different models that could be used. Open Access systems offer a true market that will allow all sorts of different experiments to come and go, and fail or succeed, and hopefully lead to greater efficiency in the system." "Stimulating the debate was one of the first things we wanted to do and I think we can confidently say that we have done that," remarks Terry. The Trust is eagerly awaiting the report of the UK House of Commons Committee Inquiry <http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/inquiry/>. "I would like to think that the weight of arguments is so conclusive - certainly they have been to us - that the Committee will make certain recommendations to the government about Open Access being better for public money. Over 90% of the research that goes on in the universities in this country is funded either from government or from the charity sector. But if you are just an ordinary member of the public you cannot read it, unless you pay for it. I think that the government will find it difficult to come down in favor of one business model or another. But they could certainly be looking at how best to use what's available to disseminate publicly funded research." Terry says that the Trust is unlikely to insist that its fundees publish exclusively in Open Access journals - at least at this stage. "Whist I can see the strong arguments for that, one of the things that we are reluctant to do is to force researchers down a path too early and create unnecessary antagonism. If Open Access delivers as many benefits as we think it should, then researchers should be choosing it willingly. I think we need more advocacy work with our own stakeholders. We are looking at how to communicate to the people who take our grants about the benefits of Open Access. Ultimately that's where the argument has to be won. Researchers themselves must be convinced that this is in their best interests." Terry feels that repositories are also an effective way to disseminate science. While the Trust might consider building its own repository, Terry is hoping that the House of Commons Committee may recommend the creation of a national repository for all UK research. "That could be done in all sorts of ways. It could be something that was immediate, that anyone who had received public money would have to place their papers there, or it could be after three months or after six months or whatever. There are all sorts of steps that could be taken. That would be a positive step forward and we would be supportive of such a national open archive." The Wellcome Trust has provided a leading example for other funding bodies to follow. The Trust is motivated by its role in funding top quality research and is committed to making sure that the results of that research can be read by everyone. The Trust has emphasized that it considers the costs of research dissemination to be part of the costs of research. "Our analysis suggests that we are really only looking at 1-2% of standard research costs," says Terry. "I think that's a small price to pay for the increase in impact, citations, and so on. It might mean that we fund less research. But a 1-2% decrease in volume may not be a bad thing. What we are interested in is high quality research that has a real impact, not the numbers of papers. If one of our �5 million grants produces only one paper but that paper is really hugely significant then I think that we would be happy. And we would want it to be completely open and freely accessible." <http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/publications>

1 0

The Sabo Bill and Open Access
by Mailing List Manager 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:59:52 +0530 From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun(a)mssrf.res.in> Friends: Here is a report from Open Access Now, dated 19 July 2004. Sabo bill sparks copyright controversy When Congressman Martin O. Sabo introduced a bill in the US House of Representatives on June 26 that would make research funded by the American government exempt from copyright protection, he had no idea of the controversy it would generate amongst the research and publishing communities. "Some of my staff brought the issue to my attention and I thought it made a lot of sense, so I introduced the bill," said Sabo, a Democrat Representative from Minnesota. "I have discovered that it's generated lots of interest and lots of controversy. There are lots of scientists who are very interested. And clearly there are people involved in the publishing industry who are making the case for their role in the whole process." Currently, work produced by federal employees is exempt from copyright protection, but this doesn't cover grant recipients. The bill, officially called the 'Public Access to Science Act' but also referred to as the 'Sabo bill', aims to amend existing US copyright law so that research that has been "substantially funded" by the US federal government can also not be copyrighted, ensuring its free availability to the public. "The bill is really fairly simple. I think that it's a fundamental principle that research that has been funded by the public sector should be generally available to the public free of charge," Sabo told Open Access Now. He feels strongly that US residents shouldn't have to pay twice - once through taxation to fund research and a second time to gain access to the results. ------------- It's a fundamental principle that research that has been funded by the public sector should be generally available to the public free of charge. -- Martin Sabo ------------- "It's wrong when a breast cancer patient cannot access federally funded research data paid for by her hardearned taxes," said Sabo in a press statement. "It is wrong when the family whose child has a rare disease must pay again for research data their tax dollars already paid for. Common sense dictates we provide the most cutting-edge research to all who may benefit from it - especially when they've already paid for it with their tax dollars, and my legislation will do just that." When pushed on what "substantially funded" means, Sabo concedes "We haven't quite sorted that out yet. We'll have to define that either by law or regulation and come up with a more precise definition of the percentages." The fact that "substantially" is not defined in the bill might allow the many federal agencies that fund research to define it in their own ways. Peter Suber, an Open Access pioneer at Earlham College, USA, has called the Public Access to Science Act "the boldest and most direct legislative proposal ever submitted on behalf of Open Access," and has made suggestions that he feels would enhance the bill's effectiveness. "Putting works into the public domain and obtaining copyright - holder consent to Open Access are not themselves Open Access," explains Suber. "They are merely two ways to clear the legal path to Open Access." "The Public Access to Science Act could go further and require actual Open Access. It could require funded researchers to submit their work to Open Access journals or deposit it in Open Access archives." Suber suggests additional measures to ensure that copyright legislation accelerates the switch to Open Access. "[The bill] could require federal research grants to cover the processing fees charged by Open Access journals - that is, [it] could treat Open Access publication as a cost of research." This approach is already being taken by some funding agencies, such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (see Open Access Now, July 14, 2003). The Sabo bill has sparked heated debate within the life sciences community about the importance of copyright and the role of traditional publishers. The bill is supported by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), a non-profit organization that is developing models for Open Access publishing, but some have questioned the consequences of removing copyright protection. Michael J. Held, Executive Director of Rockefeller University Press (RUP), calls the bill "a hasty and ill-timed measure". In an editorial in the Journal of Cell Biology, Held wrote "I take issue with a number of the points made by the Sabo Act. It appears to me that this is a thinly veiled attempt by Harold Varmus and the other founders of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) to eventually force all publishers into their Open Access publishing model. As this publishing model is unproven and may well be unsustainable, this is an irresponsible act." Held says that "publishers such as RUP seek to hold secure copyright so that we can ensure that we have both the legal right and the resources to guarantee free access, albeit after a brief interval." Held's editorial was freely available online prior to publication, to ensure that it reached a wide audience. The Association of American Universities (AAU) has also opposed the bill. In a letter to Sabo's office, AAU president Nils Hasselmo expressed the view that denying copyright protection for publications resulting from federally funded research was unnecessary and could prove "quite harmful to the nation's research enterprise." He maintains that copyright protection is important for assuring accuracy and authenticity of publications and maintaining the current publishing process. The senior editors at PLoS have written a reply to Held and other critics who have, among other points, raised the specter of increased plagiarism in the absence of copyright protection. "Although some concern has been voiced about the consequences of excluding copyright protection, its removal will not leave authors or their works vulnerable to abuse," they say. "Copyright has not been used by publishers or individual authors to protect the integrity of the scientific literature. Rather, rigorous standards of behavior within the scientific community have provided the best deterrent from abuse (including against acts of plagiarism and misuse of another's work)." Sabo is undeterred by the opposition his bill has met. "Clearly anytime that you are doing something different there are going to be people who are apprehensive and nervous about that. I have already heard from publishers expressing their concern and I am sure there will be others. People in the publishing business will continue to have an important role but it will involve some change for them. But I have also heard from lots of people supporting the bill. This is just the beginning and it will probably take a while. But we are going to be pushing forward." Since the bill's introduction, comment on the issue of access to research data has been made at a meeting of the House Appropriations Committee, which allocates the federal budget for the National Library of Medicine (NLM) - next year's budget will be US$316 million. The Committee commended the NLM for its leadership in developing PubMed Central (see Open Access Now, July 28, 2003) and expressed its concern about "reports that there has been a significant change in the availability of research data internationally and a dramatic rise in medical research data subscription costs. NLM is encouraged to examine how the consolidation of for-profit biomedical research publishers, with their increased subscription charges, has restricted access to vital research information to not-for-profit libraries." The Committee asked for a report by March 2004 on ways to ensure that taxpayerfunded research remains in the public domain and to alleviate restrictions on the availability of information. --------------------------- The Public Access to Science Act is the boldest and most direct legislative proposal ever submitted on behalf of Open Access ---Peter Suber ---------------------------- The Sabo bill is likely to generate other legislative fallout. "I hope it has impact in other countries too," says Congressman Sabo. Already there are signs in the UK that the call for Open Access to government-funded research is moving from the academy to the legislature. Dr Ian Gibson, UK Member of Parliament for Norwich North and Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee for Science and Technology, has submitted a question to the new UK Secretary of State for Health that asks "what plans he has to ensure that all publicly funded research is recorded and made freely available to patients, health professionals, the public and members of the scientific community." Health Secretary John Reid is expected to answer Gibson's question by September 8. The Sabo bill will now go to a series of hearings and committees, starting with the Judiciary committee. "It's a long process that could take many months. Our system moves slowly," says Sabo. "I have no guarantee that it will become law. But we are expecting to stimulate lots of debate about this important issue." ---------------------- Public Access to Science Act 108th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2613 To amend title 17, United States Code, to exclude from copyright protection works resulting from scientific research substantially funded by the Federal Government. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 26, 2003 Mr. SABO (for himself, Ms. KAPTUR, and Mr. FROST) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Judiciary A BILL To amend title 17, United States Code, to exclude from copyright protection works resulting from scientific research substantially funded by the Federal Government. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the 'Public Access to Science Act'. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds that - (1) the United States Government funds basic research with the intention and the belief that the new ideas and discoveries that result from the research will improve the lives and welfare of the people of the United States and around the world; (2) works of the United States Government are beyond the reach of copyright protection so that they will be freely available for the benefit of the people of the United States; (3) the United States Government spends $45,000,000,000 a year to support scientific and medical research whose product is new knowledge for the public benefit; (4) the Internet makes it possible for this information to be promptly available not only to every scientist and physician who could use it to further the public good, but to every person with access to the Internet at home, in school, or in a library; and (5) United States Government funded research belongs to, and should be freely available to, every person in the United States. SECTION 3. COPYRIGHT STATUS OF WORKS SUBSTANTIALLY FUNDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (a) FUNDING AGREEMENTSSection 105 of title 17, United States Code, is amended - (1) by striking 'Copyright' and inserting '(a) IN GENERAL - Copyright'; and (2) by adding at the end the following: '(b) FEDERALLY FUNDED WORKS - '1) IN GENERAL- Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work produced pursuant to scientific research substantially funded by the Federal Government to the extent provided in the funding agreement entered into by the relevant Federal agency pursuant to paragraph (2). '(2) PROVISION IN FUNDING AGREEMENTS- Any Federal department or agency that enters into a funding agreement with any person for the performance of scientific research substantially funded by the Federal Government shall include in the agreement a provision that states that copyright protection under this title is not available for any work produced pursuant to such research under the agreement. '(3) REGULATIONS- Each Federal department or agency that enters into funding agreements to which paragraph (2) applies shall issue regulations to carry out that paragraph. '(4) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term 'funding agreement' means any contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into between any Federal agency and any person for the performance of scientific research funded by the Federal Government. Such term includes any assignment, substitution of parties, or subcontract of any type entered into for the performance of such research'. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to any funding agreement (as defined in section 105(b)(4) of title 17, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section), entered into on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. SECTION 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS. It is the sense of the Congress that any Federal department or agency that enters into funding agreements (as defined in section 105(b)(4) of title 17, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act) should make every effort to develop and support mechanisms for making the published results of the research conducted pursuant to the agreements freely and easily available to the scientific community, the private sector, physicians, and the public.

1 0

UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Report on Op en Access
by Mailing List Manager 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:25:38 +0530 From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun(a)mssrf.res.in> Friends: At one minute past midnight on July 20, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee released the long-awaited report on its inquiry into journal prices and open access. Considering that India and other developing countries stand to gain by adopting open access far more than advanced countries such as the United Kingdom, I suggest that donor agencies in India insist that all publications resulting from their support be placed in interoperable institutional archives. A little bit of training may be necessary as well as decent Internet connections in universities and research institutions. Regards. Arun Here's Peter Suber's summary of the major recommendations: Moderator's Note ---------------- Since the Summary and excerpts from the UK report has already been circulated through a another posting, it has been truncated from this posting. - moderator

1 0

RE: [LIS-Forum] 25,000 titles (books) in Engineering field
by Mailing List Manager 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:14:35 +0100 (BST) From: "[iso-8859-1] vijaya kumara" <vijayakumar71(a)yahoo.co.in> Dear Sir You are right, but after getting all 25 thousand titles, we will circulate to all dept of our college, then with their recommendation we procure the same. For us money is not a problem. But we should get accredation from NBA/AICTE at any cost. Regards Vijayakumar M

1 0

Number of engineering Ph.D graduates from India
by Mailing List Manager 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:44:23 +0530 From: Aman Jha <aman.jha(a)ciionline.org> This refers to Dr Rajashekar's email seeking number of engineering Ph.D graduates from India. I suggest to refer a report published by All India Council for Technical Education titled "Reshaping postgraduate education and research in Engineering & Tecnology". This contains yearwise (1954 onwards) list of Engineering Ph.D graduates in India. In 1954, there were only 19 Ph.Ds in Engineering whereas in 1996, there were 374 Ph.Ds in Engineering. 675 were the highest number of Ph.Ds in Engineering in 1987. Regards, Aman Jha Librarian Confederation of Indian Industry Plot No 249-F, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015 (Haryana) Tel: 0124-5014060-67 � Fax: 0124-5014080

1 0

Refresher course for Librarians and teachers -Osmania University
by Mailing List Manager 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:44:03 +0100 (BST) From: "[iso-8859-1] Prof. N. Laxman Rao." <naglaxman(a)yahoo.com> Dear friends, Academic Staff College, Osmania University is organising a refresher course for academic librarians and lecturers from 22 Nov 2004 to 11 Dec 2004. The professionals desirous of applying for the said course mya send their applications to the Director, Academic Staff College, Osmania University, HYDERABAD- 500007. LAXMAN RAO 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

The UK House of Commons Report
by Mailing List Manager 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:28:49 +0530 From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun(a)mssrf.res.in> Here is a news story from The Independent, London. Arun MPs call for biennial review of profits from science journals By Rachel Stevenson 20 July 2004 Reed Elsevier and other publishers will be told by MPs today to be more transparent in the pricing of scientific journals, as part of a wider call to allow freer access to research. After an eight-month inquiry into the market for scientific research, the Science and Technology Committee publishes its report today. The committee has found that libraries are struggling to afford subscriptions to all the scientific journals its users need, and the committee will call on the Office of Fair Trading to review journal pricing biennially. The committee heard that average journal prices have risen 58 per cent between 1998 and 2003, while library budgets have been cut back. "While libraries are struggling to purchase journals, publishers' profit margins remain exceptionally high compared with the rest of the publishing industry - as much as 34 per cent at operating level in the case of Reed Elsevier, the market leader," the report says. "High publisher profit margins need to be set in the context of faltering library budgets and an impending crisis in scientific journals provision." As part of an overhaul of the system for publishing scientific material, the committee will suggest that all universities and public-funded research bodies publish all their research material online, free of charge. But the committee has also given rise to the potential for an about-turn in the business model for publishing scientific research. Publishing groups, most of whom operate on a subscription model whereby authors can publish freely and users of the material bear the cost, have been lobbying hard against an alternative. This is an "author-pays" model where the author pays to publish work and access to the research is free. The committee has found that the author-pays model "could be viable" and will ask for an independent study to look further at the possibility of converting scientific publishing to this model. "Although early indications are positive, it is too early to assess the impact that author-pays publishing has had on access to scientific publications," the report says. But it says the author-pays model could be vital for allowing researchers in the developing world, many of whom cannot afford the increasing subscription levels, to access research from the UK and the US. The committee wants the Government to explore giving "financial assistance" to publishers to make the switch to author-pays. Reed has already said it will allow wider scope for authors to "self-archive" by publishing their work on either their own or their university's website. And today it will make a statement to welcome the proposals. But its recent pronouncement on the issue raised eyebrows at the committee, which said it was "in little doubt that Elsevier timed the announcement of its new policy on self-archiving to pre-empt the publication of this report". It is understood that an inquiry has begun into whether the report was leaked to Reed, which has denied having any advance knowledge of the committee's findings. Reed was, at least, credited by the committee for keeping the rise in its prices to more moderate levels. In what will be another major upset to the publishing industry, the committee will call on authors to retain copyright of their material, which is then licensed out to publishing companies when the research is printed. The committee also scrutinised large, bulk-buy deals offered by publishing companies to libraries. This is known as bundling, and involves selling subscriptions of the entire range of titles from one publisher at a lower price than individual subscriptions. The committee will tell the publishing industry that bundling "does not present libraries with value for money".

1 0

Re:Outstanding books
by Mailing List Manager 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:07:46 +0530 From: vijayalakshmijs(a)ingvysyabank.com Dear all, Here is an query.I hope I'll get the solution for it. Our's is not a big library but we are having 5500 books. Now i am facing the problem as on issue/return of books, earlier this library is not an automated, but from the last 2 years we are using Netlibsoftware. Earlier to this software books were circulated and did entries through manual system using one register.And some are not having the entry of issue /return else where. My previous librarian had issued some of the books which are having the entries in the register through software. But when i sent a over due notice to these people they argued with me that they were already returned these books to the previous librarian. Kindly inform me in what way we can solve the problem. Thanks and regards Vijayalakshmi J S Librarian STC ING Vysya Bank Ltd. PH NO: 26507281 e-mail: vijayalakshmijs(a)ingvysyabank.com

1 0

Summary and excerpts from the UK House of Commons report
by Dr. T.B. Rajashekar 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Dear All The UK House of Commons had set up a Science and Technology Committee to study the issue of journal prices and open access and prepare a report. The Committee heard representations from different stakeholders including publishers, libraries, open access proponents, university administrators, grants agencies, etc, over the past few months. The report was released yesterday. From the following mail posted on American Scientist Open Access Forum by Dr. Peter Suber, it appears that the Committee has made very strong and positive recommendations supporting open access. I thought you may be interested. Regards Rajashekar T.B. Rajashekar NCSI, IISc -----Original Message----- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM@LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]On Behalf Of Peter Suber Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 8:26 PM To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM(a)LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG Subject: [SOAF] Summary and excerpts from the UK report At one minute past midnight on July 20, the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee released the long-awaited report on its inquiry into journal prices and open access (about 90 minutes ago). Here's my summary of the major recommendations: (1) The government should provide funds for all UK universities to launch open-access institutional repositories. (2) Authors of articles based on government-funded research should deposit copies in their institutional repositories. (3) The government should appoint a "central body" to oversee the launch of the institutional repositories, their networking needs, and their compliance with "technical standards needed to provide maximum functionality" (presumably the OAI metadata harvesting protocol). (4) The government should create a fund to help authors pay the processing fees charged by open-access journals. The committee is not yet ready to endorse the upfront funding model for OA journals (which it calls the "author-pays" model), but wants to create such a fund in order to promote further experimentation with the model. (5) The government should develop a wider, long-term open-access strategy, including open-access journals, "as a matter of urgency". (6) Universities should develop their "capacity to manage" the copyrights that faculty will increasingly retain in the future. (7) These steps can and should be undertaken without jeopardizing "rigorous and independent peer review". (8) The government should fund the British Library to take on the long-term preservation of digital scholarship. (9) Because the market for science and scholarship is international, the government should "act as a proponent for change on the international stage and lead by example". The full report (a 118 page PDF file) will soon be available at the committee's page of reports, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsctech.htm What follows below the line is a verbatim excerpt from the report. This section spells out the committee's specific recommendations and the its responses to the major arguments presented in the oral and written testimony. Peter Suber ----------cut here---------- Excerpt from Scientific Publications: Free for All?, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, July 20, 2004, pp. 98-107. Conclusions and recommendations 1. It is discouraging that the Government does not yet appear to have given much consideration to balancing the needs of the research community, the taxpayer and the commercial sectors for which it has responsibility. (Paragraph 22) 2. We are convinced that the amount of public money invested in scientific research and its outputs is sufficient to merit Government involvement in the publishing process. Indeed, we would be very surprised if Government did not itself feel the need to account for its investment in the publishing process. We were disappointed by how little thought has been given to the issues within Government thus far and hope that this Report will prove to be a catalyst for change. (Paragraph 24) 3. The backdrop of international interest and momentum for change sets the scene for the UK Government to take a lead in establishing an efficient and sustainable environment for the publication of research findings. (Paragraph 25) 4. We will give a copy of this Report to the UK delegates to the Culture, Science and Education Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. We hope that the Committee will pursue the issues raised here, both within the Council of Europe and on a wider international stage. (Paragraph 28) 5. The British Library's Document Supply Service is an efficient and cost-effective method of providing access to articles in scientific journals. The decline in demand for Document Supply notwithstanding, we are persuaded that the service provides a valuable alternative route for users who would not otherwise have access to the journals that they needed. We recommend that the Government takes steps to protect the service. (Paragraph 31) 6. We are not convinced that the publisher practice of granting each subscriber access to a set number of digital "copies" of a journal is either effective or necessary. We recommend that the Joint Information Systems Committee strongly argues the case against such restrictive practices when it negotiates the terms for the next national site licence with publishers. (Paragraph 32) 7. We congratulate the Medical Research Council on its support of the principle that primary research data should be made available to the scientific community for subsequent research. We recommend that the Research Councils consider providing funds to enable researchers to publish their primary data alongside their research findings, where appropriate. (Paragraph 33) 8. All researchers, regardless of the nature of their institution, should be granted access to the scientific journals they need to carry out their work effectively. (Paragraph 35) 9. We recommend that the Joint Information Systems Committee and the NHS work together to implement joint procurement procedures that reflect the close working patterns of NHS and the higher education sector and represent value for money for both. (Paragraph 36) 10. Teaching is a crucial university function. Universities should be permitted, within reason, to derive maximum value from the digital journals to which they subscribe by using them for legitimate teaching purposes. We recommend that future licensing deals negotiated by the Joint Information Systems Committee explicitly include provisions to enable journal articles, whether print or digital, to be used for teaching purposes. (Paragraph 38) 11. It is not for either publishers or academics to decide who should, and who should not, be allowed to read scientific journal articles. We are encouraged by the growing interest in research findings shown by the public. It is in society's interest that public understanding of science should increase. Increased public access to research findings should be encouraged by publishers, academics and Government alike. (Paragraph 40) 12. We are not convinced that journal articles are consistently available to members of the public through public libraries. (Paragraph 42) 13. Digitisation should facilitate, not restrict access. We recommend that the next national site licence negotiated by the Joint Information Systems Committee explicitly provides for all library users without an Athens password to access the digital journals stocked by their library. (Paragraph 44) 14. Publishers are to be commended for signing up to laudable schemes such as HINARI, AGORA and INASP-PERI. We hope that the provision of free and low- cost access to scientific publications for institutions and researchers in developing countries will continue to be a significant aspect of the way that they conduct their businesses. (Paragraph 47) 15. The digitisation of journals has the potential to greatly increase access to research findings for researchers in the developing world. (Paragraph 48) 16. We recommend that the Joint Information Systems Committee develop an independent set of measures, agreed by subscribers and publishers alike, to monitor trends in journal pricing. This will help exert pressure on the publishing industry to self-regulate more effectively and will give libraries and other users greater knowledge when they are deciding which subscriptions to take. (Paragraph 53) 17. It is not for us to pronounce on the acceptability of the profit margins secured by private sector companies. Nonetheless, high publisher profit margins need to be set against the context of faltering library budgets and an impending crisis in STM journals provision. Cancelled journal subscriptions due to pressures on library budgets will have a negative impact on publishers. It is thus in everybody's interest for profit margins to be kept at a reasonable and sustainable level. We urge publishers to act on the recommendations of this Report to address these issues. (Paragraph 54) 18. Government invests a significant amount of money in scientific research, the outputs of which are expressed in terms of journal articles. It is accountable for this expenditure to the public. We were dismayed that the Government showed so little concern about where public money ended up. (Paragraph 55) 19. We recommend that the Joint Information Systems Committee ensure that provision for continuing access in the event of cancellation to articles published during the subscription period is written into its next national licensing deal. (Paragraph 61) 20. Increasing usage rates do not equate to an increased ability for libraries to pay for journal bundles. The recent availability of usage statistics should not be used as a justification for publishers to raise their prices. (Paragraph 66) 21. Although libraries may aspire to provide access to every scientific journal, they cannot afford to do this. It is inevitable that difficult choices between a number of journals with lower usage rates and impact factors will have to be made. Nonetheless, these decisions should be made in response to local user needs rather than as a side effect of bundling. (Paragraph 67) 22. Current levels of flexibility within the journal bundle do not present libraries with value for money. Whilst we accept that unbundling STM information carries risks for the main commercial publishers, only when flexible bundled deals are made available will libraries achieve value for money on their subscriptions. Furthermore, although we recognise that bundled deals may be advantageous to libraries in certain circumstances, we are concerned about the potential impact bundling may have on competition, given limited library budgets and sustained STM journal price growth. (Paragraph 68) 23. Publishers should publicly acknowledge the contribution of unpaid peer reviewers to the publishing process. We recommend that they provide modest financial rewards to the departments in which the reviewers are based. These rewards could be fed back into the system, helping to fund seminars or further research. (Paragraph 70) 24. We do not doubt the central importance of peer review to the STM publishing process. Nonetheless, we note a tendency for publishers to inflate the cost to them of peer review in order to justify charging high prices. This lack of transparency about actual costs hampers informed debate about scientific publishing. (Paragraph 76) 25. We applaud the development by publishers of new technologies for digital journals. Innovative products such as ScienceDirect have brought increased functionality to researchers and users, making journals a more valuable research tool. (Paragraph 78) 26. We are persuaded that the costs to publishers associated with digitisation will reduce over time. Consequently, we would no longer expect these costs to be used as a justification for steep increases in prices. In the meantime we are concerned that financially powerful STM publishers may be using their strength during this digital transition period to make excessive profits whilst the going is good (Paragraph 79) 27. We believe that publishers should make it clear to subscribers what services and costs are and are not covered by the overall subscription price, enabling libraries and other users to weigh up the costs and benefits of taking out the subscription. We urge the Joint Information Systems Committee and other buying bodies to press for greater transparency in this area. (Paragraph 80) 28. Like the Office of Fair Trading, we are not entirely convinced by the cost- justification argument employed by publishers to explain rising prices. Publishers undoubtedly add value to the scientific process, but they also profit from it. (Paragraph 83) 29. It is not enough for the Government departments involved to declare themselves to be aware of the problems surrounding the imposition of VAT on digital, but not print, publications. As the issue is so critical to the adequate provision of scientific publications and to reaping the full anticipated benefits from digitisation, we recommend that DTI, DfES and DCMS all make a strong case to HM Customs and Excise for a change to the existing VAT regime. (Paragraph 86) 30. We recommend that HM Customs and Excise make strong and immediate representations within the European Commission to bring about the introduction of a zero rate VAT relief for digital journals, in line with the zero rate currently charged on print journals. (Paragraph 88) 31. We recommend that HM Customs and Excise exempt libraries from the VAT currently payable on digital publications whilst it negotiates for a more permanent solution within the EU. (Paragraph 89) 32. Because library budgets generally have a fixed ceiling, by increasing prices, the publisher with the largest share of the budget can gain an even greater share and may also force other publishers out of the budget altogether. (Paragraph 93) 33. We recommend that the Government Response to this Report provides information on the measures being taken by the Office of Fair Trading to monitor the market for STM journals. We urge the Office of Fair Trading to commit to biennial public reporting on the state of the market, including how STM publication prices are developing; how prices change following mergers and acquisitions in the sector and the impact of bundling deals upon competition. (Paragraph 94) 34. We agree that universities should be able to allocate their budgets locally in response to the needs of their teaching and research communities. (Paragraph 96) 35. It is unacceptable that HEFCE has shown so little interest in library budgets. We recommend that it commission a study from HEPI to ascertain both current library funding levels and library funding needs. The results of this study could be used to inform the allocation of the block grant. (Paragraph 97) 36. HEFCE has a valuable role to play in advising universities on library funding requirements. We recommend that HEFCE establish a code of good practice for library funding that universities can draw upon when allocating their budgets. (Paragraph 98) 37. Pressure on library journal acquisitions budgets has resulted in cancelled subscriptions and has contributed to a decline in book purchasing. This compromises the library's ability to provide the full range of services required by its user community. (Paragraph 99) 38. There is undoubtedly some scope for libraries to make efficiency savings, as there is for most organisations. Nonetheless, the valuable services provided by the library are expensive and staff-intensive. It is unlikely that libraries will have more to spend on acquisitions until they see an increase in budgets. (Paragraph 101) 39. Whilst we accept that it is important that libraries are responsive to local needs, opting out of national licensing deals negotiated with those needs in mind only makes the situation faced by libraries worse. (Paragraph 104) 40. We recommend that the Joint Information Systems Committee negotiate with libraries, regional purchasing consortia and other national bodies responsible for procurement to agree a common strategy. Only by combining their resources will they be able to negotiate a licensing deal that secures national support and brings real benefits. (Paragraph 105) 41. It is disappointing that many academics are content to ignore the significant difficulties faced by libraries. Until they start to see the provision of journals as, in part, their problem, the situation will not improve. (Paragraph 107) 42. Elsevier is no sudden convert to Open Access. The company has seen the direction of trends in publishing and has acted accordingly to minimise criticism of its current policies. We are in little doubt that Elsevier timed the announcement of its new policy on self-archiving to pre-empt the publication of this Report. It is good news that our inquiry has prompted such a high profile endorsement of increased access to research papers. Nonetheless, there are a number of serious constraints to self- archiving in the model proposed by Elsevier. (Paragraph 112) 43. Institutions need an incentive to set up repositories. We recommend that the requirement for universities to disseminate their research as widely as possible be written into their charters. In addition, SHERPA should be funded by DfES to allow it to make grants available to all research institutions for the establishment and maintenance of repositories. (Paragraph 115) 44. Academic authors currently lack sufficient motivation to self-archive in institutional repositories. We recommend that the Research Councils and other Government funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all their articles in their institution's repository within one month of publication or a reasonable period to be agreed following publication, as a condition of their research grant. An exception would need to be made for research findings that are deemed to be commercially sensitive. (Paragraph 117) 45. We recommend that institutional repositories are able to accept charitably- and privately-funded research articles from authors within the institution, providing that the funder has given their consent for the author to self-archive in this way. (Paragraph 118) 46. We recommend that DCMS provide adequate funds for the British Library to establish and maintain a central online repository for all UK research articles that are not housed in other institutional repositories. (Paragraph 118) 47. Institutional repositories should accept for archiving articles based on negative results, even when publication of the article in a journal is unlikely. This accumulated body of material would be a useful resource for the scientific community. It could help to prevent duplication of research and, particularly in the field of clinical research, would be in the public interest. Articles containing negative findings should be stored within a dedicated section of the repository to distinguish them from other articles. (Paragraph 118) 48. In order for institutional repositories to achieve maximum effectiveness, Government must adopt a joined-up approach. DTI, OST, DfES and DCMS should work together to create a strategy for the implementation of institutional repositories, with clearly defined aims and a realistic timetable. (Paragraph 120) 49. A greater degree of consistency is desirable in copyright agreements, from publishers, but also from Government, institutions and academics, who have the power to influence the terms on which copyright agreements are established. (Paragraph 121) 50. The issue of copyright is crucial to the success of self-archiving. We recommend that, as part of its strategy for the implementation of institutional repositories, Government ascertain what impact a UK-based policy of author copyright retention would have on UK authors. Providing that it can be established that such a policy would not have a disproportionately negative impact, Research Councils and other Government funders should mandate their funded researchers to retain the copyright on their research articles, licensing it to publishers for the purposes of publication. The Government would also need to be active in raising the issue of copyright at an international level. (Paragraph 126) 51. We recommend that higher education institutions are funded to enable them to assume control of copyright arising from their research. In order to carry out this function they will need in-house expertise and dedicated staff. (Paragraph 127) 52. The cost to the taxpayer of establishing and maintaining an infrastructure of institutional repositories across UK higher education would be minimal, particularly in proportion to the current total UK higher education spend. When the cost is weighed against the benefits they would bring, institutional repositories plainly represent value for money. (Paragraph 130) 53. Having taken the step of funding and supporting institutional repositories, the UK Government would need to become an advocate for them at a global level. If all countries archived their research findings in this way, access to scientific publications would increase dramatically. We see this as a great opportunity for the UK to lead the way in broadening access to publicly-funded research findings and making available software tools and resources for accomplishing this work. (Paragraph 131) 54. Peer review is a key element in the publishing process and should be a pillar of institutional repositories. We recommend that SHERPA agree a "kite mark" with publishers that can be used to denote articles that have been published in a peer- reviewed journal. Upon publication, articles in repositories should be allocated the kitemark and marked with the date and journal of publication by the staff member responsible for populating the repository. Authors depositing articles in institutional repositories should also be required to declare their funding sources in order to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest occurring. (Paragraph 135) 55. We recommend that the Government appoints and funds a central body, based on SHERPA, to co-ordinate the implementation of a network of institutional repositories. (Paragraph 136) 56. A Government-established central body would play a major role in implementing technical standards across institutional repositories to ensure maximum functionality and interoperability. (Paragraph 137) 57. We recommend that DTI works with UK publishers to establish how the industry might evolve in an environment where other business models flourished alongside the subscriber-pays model. Government also needs to become an intelligent procurer, outsourcing some of the technical work involved in establishing and maintaining institutional repositories to publishers who already have the relevant infrastructure and expertise in place. (Paragraph 140) 58. We see institutional repositories as operating alongside the publishing industry. In the immediate term they will enable readers to gain free access to journal articles whilst the publishing industry experiments with new publishing models, such as the author-pays model. (Paragraph 143) 59. For the Government either to endorse or dismiss the new publishing model would be too simplistic. Without any Government action, some authors are already choosing to publish in journals that use author payments to recover costs. Author- pays publishing is a phenomenon that has already arrived: it is for the Government and others to decide how best to respond. (Paragraph 144) 60. The evidence produced so far suggests that the author-pays model could be viable. We recommend that Government mobilise the different interest groups to support a comprehensive independent study into the costs associated with author-pays publishing. The study could be used to inform Government policy and strategy. (Paragraph 150) 61. Encouraging a public that is more scientifically literate and assisting women in their pursuit of successful careers in scientific research have been two of the Committee's longstanding concerns. We support, in principle, any measure that seeks to further these aims. (Paragraph 156) 62. Although early indications are positive, it is too early to assess the impact that author-pays publishing has had on access to scientific publications. (Paragraph 159) 63. The author-pays publishing model would be extremely advantageous to researchers in developing countries, enabling them to keep abreast of research conducted elsewhere. Financially, author charges would be less burdensome to researchers in the developing world than current subscription rates. If the author-pays model were to prevail, publishers, Government agencies and other donors would need to adapt existing schemes, such as HINARI, AGORA and INASP-PERI, to meet the demands of the altered cost recovery model. (Paragraph 162) 64. We recommend that the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded researchers can apply should they wish to publish their articles using the author-pays model. The Research Councils will need to be funded by OST to take account of this increase in costs. We hope that industry, charity and other Government funders will consider similar measures. (Paragraph 165) 65. Research Councils for disciplines that require only limited funding should be funded to enable them to pay for publication costs where necessary. (Paragraph 166) 66. In order to succeed, most author-pays publishers, like everyone else, will have to publish articles of a high quality. It is not, therefore, within the interest of journals at the higher end of the market to lessen the rigour of peer review. Nonetheless, there is a risk that lower quality journals might seek to reduce their quality threshold in order to generate profit. Were the author-pays publishing model to prevail it would be vital to ensure that peer review was not compromised in order to retain confidence in the integrity of the publishing process. (Paragraph 172) 67. The introduction of a submission fee would be an important step towards ensuring the quality of scientific publications and we strongly recommend that author-pays publishers introduce this system. (Paragraph 174) 68. The commercial and industrial sectors currently contribute significant funds to the publishing process through payments for journal subscriptions. Much of this money would be lost to the system if an author-pays model were to prevail. This is one of the key issues that needs to be addressed before the wholescale transition to an author-pays model can be supported. Government, publishers and industry need to work together to identify a solution to this problem in order to avoid a disproportionate increase in the amount of money that Government invests directly or indirectly in the publishing process. (Paragraph 177) 69. Learned societies are greatly valued by the academic and wider research community. It is of concern to us that learned societies could stand to lose a substantial portion of their income in a move to the author-pays publishing model. This is another key issue that proponents of the author-pays model need to address. (Paragraph 180) 70. We strongly support further experimentation with the author-pays publishing model. In the short term Government may need to provide limited financial assistance to encourage publishers and institutions to take part in what, for them, may be an expensive process. We applaud the Joint Information Systems Committee for providing funding for this purpose so far and hope that it will continue to do so. (Paragraph 184) 71. Author-pays publishing is a growing phenomenon. Its implementation on any scale will have important consequences for current funding structures and the UK publishing industry. So far the Government has shown little inclination to address this issue. (Paragraph 185) 72. Government has not shown much evidence of a joined-up approach to the challenges posed by changes to the model for scientific publishing. Whilst the central departments have been slow to respond to the author-pays publishing model, at least two Government-funded bodies have given public support to it. This creates unnecessary confusion. We recommend that it formulate a coherent strategy as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 186) 73. We are satisfied that, by scaling publication with research costs, the author-pays publishing model would ensure a fairer global distribution of the costs of publishing research findings. (Paragraph 188) 74. The UK would put itself at a financial disadvantage internationally if it were to act alone in mandating publicly-funded researchers to publish in author-pays journals. (Paragraph 189) 75. Institutional repositories should be a key component of any long-term strategy to ensure the preservation of digital publications. (Paragraph 193) 76. The British Library has a crucial role to play in the preservation of digital publications, both strategically and practically. This is an expensive process. Whilst the publication of this Report is too late to have any influence on funding decisions made as part of the 2004 Spending Review, we strongly support the British Library's call for extra funding in recognition of the work that it has carried out in this capacity. Failure of the Government to give adequate funding to the British Library could result in the loss of a substantial proportion of the UK's scientific record. (Paragraph 196) 77. It is vital that work on regulations for the legal deposit of non-print publications begins as soon as possible. We cannot understand why DCMS has not yet established the Legal Deposit Advisory Panel. We recommend that they appoint the panel and begin preliminary work on the regulations at official level immediately. (Paragraph 199) 78. We recommend that the first task of the Advisory Panel is to establish definitions of a digital publication and a UK publication that are flexible enough to capture material from a range of sources in a range of formats. (Paragraph 200) 79. The existence of a secure network between the legal deposit libraries would create greater efficiencies in the deposit system and would have the potential to increase access to deposited material. We recommend that provisions for such a network are made in the regulations with these two aims in mind. The deposit libraries should be funded to establish the network. (Paragraph 201) 80. We recommend that the regulations make provision for the deposit libraries to deliver digital articles remotely to desktops on the same payment basis as Document Supply. (Paragraph 202) 81. Gaps of up to 60% in the deposit of electronically-delivered publications, including STM journals, represent a significant breach in the intellectual record. It is imperative that work on recovering and purchasing the missing items begins immediately. The six deposit libraries will need additional funding to do this. (Paragraph 203) 82. As is the case with any process, peer review is not an infallible system and to a large extent depends on the integrity and competence of the people involved and the degree of editorial oversight and quality assurance of the peer review process itself. Nonetheless we are satisfied that publishers are taking reasonable measures to main high standards of peer review. (Paragraph 207) [end]

1 0

The best business model for scholarly journals
by Shyam Prasad pujar 21 Jul '04

21 Jul '04

Dear Members, Please go through Economists perspective about best business model for scholarly journals at: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/28.html Regards, S.M. Pujar ********************************************************************** Shamprasad M. Pujar Assistant Librarian Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Gen. Vaidya Marg, Film City Road Goregaon (East) MUMBAI-400 065 India %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% * Phone: (022) 28400919-21 Extn: 514 * * Fax: (022) 28402752 * * E-mail: pujar(a)igidr.ac.in * * URL: http://www.igidr.ac.in * %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1 0