LIS-Forum

Download

lis-forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in

14 participants
24054 discussions

FW: [BOAI] Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving (fwd)
by Subbiah Arunachalam 05 Oct '04

05 Oct '04

Here is a brief note from a discussion list explaining why institutional archiving is the best option and why funders and institutions should mandate such archiving. Hope you find this interesting and useful in the Indian context. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, [identity deleted] wrote: > While OAI compliance is a sine qua non condition of some measure of > inter-operability, it does not (yet?) ensure the kind of ease of > retrieval that other forms of archiving can provide, including some > form of central archiving. Ease-of-retrieval advantages are no more inherent in centralised archives than in any other type of open archive. Ease of retrieval is dependent upon the quality of article metadata, upon the functionality of the search engine used, and upon the retrieval skills of the inquirer (especially if fulltext is searched), and all of these are irrespective of where articles are archived. Our recent study, carried out in partnership with the Universities of Loughborough and Cranfield on behalf of JISC, produced a recommended model for the delivery, management and access of eprints (both pre- and post-prints)in UK further and higher education communities. We deliberated on the relative merits of central versus institutional archiving and came down firmly on the side of the latter. The reasons for this were several - both technical and cultural - and are set out in detail in our full report, which will be published by JISC within the few days [Swan,A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., O'Brien, A., Oppenheim, C., Hardy, R., and Rowland, F (2004) Delivery, Management and Access Model for E-prints and Open Access Journals within Further and Higher Education]. (www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/E-prints_delivery_model.pdf) Here is a quote from the executive summary of our report: "This study identified three models for open access provision in the UK .... In considering the relative merits of these models, we addressed not only technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by authors) can be achieved, since without this content provision there can be no effective e-print delivery service (for users). For technical and cultural reasons, this study recommends that the centralised model should not be adopted for the proposed UK service. This would have been the costliest option and it would have omitted the growing body of content in distributed institutional, subject-based, and open-access journal archives. Moreover, the central archiving approach is the 'wrong way round' with respect to e-print provision since for reasons of academic and institutional culture and so long as effective measures are implemented, individual institution-based e-print archives are far more likely to fill (and fill quickly) than centralised archives, because institutions and researchers share a vested interested in the impact of their research output, and because institutions are in a position to mandate and monitor compliance, a position not enjoyed by centralised archives." One of the critical aspects of our decision was that any model for delivering eprints must operate in, and help to create, the arena most likely to provide the maximum amount of eprint material to deliver. Two things (only) have a bearing on this - archives being available for authors to use, and authors actually archiving their articles. >From the evidence we looked at - existing archives - it was clear to us that even when archives are available there is still precious little peer-reviewed material being deposited, ergo it is author behaviour that is at the very root of the matter. How may authors be 'encouraged' to self-archive? The evidence shows that whilst a carrot approach produces some success, 'encouragement' would best take the form of a stick - by someone, somewhere, mandating self-archiving. Why authors need such a mandate can be debated at length by those with the inclination for such things. The fact is that when there is a mandate by some authority that has clout, authors will comply. There are few examples of such mandates in operation as yet (though where they exist, they are working), but plenty of promise for those to come. KPL's recent, separate, study on open access publishing (also commissioned by JISC) produced clear evidence that authors have, in general and in principle, no objection to self-archiving and will comply with a mandate to do so from their employer or research funder. Our findings were that 77% of authors would comply with such a mandate. Only 3% said they would NOT comply. [Swan, A and Brown, S (2004) Report of the JISC/OSI journal authors survey. pp 1-76. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf; Swan, A and Brown, S (2004) Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 17 (3), 219-224. www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/Authors_and_open_access_publishi ng.pdf The recent government-level recommendations in the US and the UK on mandating self-archiving are therefore perfectly on target to address the issue most critical to open access provision. Scholars will self-archive if told to do so. Employers and research funders have the authority to do the telling, but they tell authors to do what, and which authors? Funders can only tell their grantees, but have the choice of telling them to deposit their articles in the funder's own archive if there is one, in some other centralised archive, or in the researcher's own institutional archive, or all of these. Employers can do all these too, but since they not only have shared goals with their researchers in respect of dissemination of research findings, but also see additional value in, and uses for, the content of an institutional archive, they are very likely to be eager to see it maximally populated and will insist on authors depositing there, at the very least. Moreover, they can mandate self-archiving across the board, including researchers who are not supported by external funding (a large number in many subject areas), and in EVERY scholarly discipline. This is a far more effective a route to comprehensive eprint provision than relying on funder mandates alone, and is much more likely to provide eprints in ALL disciplines relatively quickly than relying on the eventual establishment of centralised archives in all subject areas. Our conclusion was, then, that this scenario is the one most likely to provide the maximum level of archived content, a major plank of any model for the provision of eprints nationwide in the UK. Our model was devised accordingly and would be equally appropriate anywhere else in the world. Alma Swan FW: [BOAI] Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving (fwd) Here is a brief note from a discussion list explaining why institutional archiving is the best option and why funders and institutions should mandate such archiving. Hope you find this interesting and useful in the Indian context. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Subject: Re: Central versus institutional self-archiving On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, [identity deleted] wrote: > While OAI compliance is a sine qua non condition of some measure of > inter-operability, it does not (yet?) ensure the kind of ease of > retrieval that other forms of archiving can provide, including some > form of central archiving. Ease-of-retrieval advantages are no more inherent in centralised archives than in any other type of open archive. Ease of retrieval is dependent upon the quality of article metadata, upon the functionality of the search engine used, and upon the retrieval skills of the inquirer (especially if fulltext is searched), and all of these are irrespective of where articles are archived. Our recent study, carried out in partnership with the Universities of Loughborough and Cranfield on behalf of JISC, produced a recommended model for the delivery, management and access of eprints (both pre- and post-prints)in UK further and higher education communities. We deliberated on the relative merits of central versus institutional archiving and came down firmly on the side of the latter. The reasons for this were several - both technical and cultural - and are set out in detail in our full report, which will be published by JISC within the few days [Swan,A., Needham, P., Probets, S., Muir, A., O'Brien, A., Oppenheim, C., Hardy, R., and Rowland, F (2004) Delivery, Management and Access Model for E-prints and Open Access Journals within Further and Higher Education]. (www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/E-prints_delivery_model.pdf) Here is a quote from the executive summary of our report: "This study identified three models for open access provision in the UK .... In considering the relative merits of these models, we addressed not only technical concerns but also how e-print provision (by authors) can be achieved, since without this content provision there can be no effective e-print delivery service (for users). For technical and cultural reasons, this study recommends that the centralised model should not be adopted for the proposed UK service. This would have been the costliest option and it would have omitted the growing body of content in distributed institutional, subject-based, and open-access journal archives. Moreover, the central archiving approach is the 'wrong way round' with respect to e-print provision since for reasons of academic and institutional culture and so long as effective measures are implemented, individual institution-based e-print archives are far more likely to fill (and fill quickly) than centralised archives, because institutions and researchers share a vested interested in the impact of their research output, and because institutions are in a position to mandate and monitor compliance, a position not enjoyed by centralised archives." One of the critical aspects of our decision was that any model for delivering eprints must operate in, and help to create, the arena most likely to provide the maximum amount of eprint material to deliver. Two things (only) have a bearing on this - archives being available for authors to use, and authors actually archiving their articles. >From the evidence we looked at - existing archives - it was clear to us that even when archives are available there is still precious little peer-reviewed material being deposited, ergo it is author behaviour that is at the very root of the matter. How may authors be 'encouraged' to self-archive? The evidence shows that whilst a carrot approach produces some success, 'encouragement' would best take the form of a stick - by someone, somewhere, mandating self-archiving. Why authors need such a mandate can be debated at length by those with the inclination for such things. The fact is that when there is a mandate by some authority that has clout, authors will comply. There are few examples of such mandates in operation as yet (though where they exist, they are working), but plenty of promise for those to come. KPL's recent, separate, study on open access publishing (also commissioned by JISC) produced clear evidence that authors have, in general and in principle, no objection to self-archiving and will comply with a mandate to do so from their employer or research funder. Our findings were that 77% of authors would comply with such a mandate. Only 3% said they would NOT comply. [Swan, A and Brown, S (2004) Report of the JISC/OSI journal authors survey. pp 1-76. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf; http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf; Swan, A and Brown, S (2004) Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 17 (3), 219-224. www.keyperspectives.co.uk/OpenAccessArchive/Authors_and_open_access_publishi ng.pdf The recent government-level recommendations in the US and the UK on mandating self-archiving are therefore perfectly on target to address the issue most critical to open access provision. Scholars will self-archive if told to do so. Employers and research funders have the authority to do the telling, but they tell authors to do what, and which authors? Funders can only tell their grantees, but have the choice of telling them to deposit their articles in the funder's own archive if there is one, in some other centralised archive, or in the researcher's own institutional archive, or all of these. Employers can do all these too, but since they not only have shared goals with their researchers in respect of dissemination of research findings, but also see additional value in, and uses for, the content of an institutional archive, they are very likely to be eager to see it maximally populated and will insist on authors depositing there, at the very least. Moreover, they can mandate self-archiving across the board, including researchers who are not supported by external funding (a large number in many subject areas), and in EVERY scholarly discipline. This is a far more effective a route to comprehensive eprint provision than relying on funder mandates alone, and is much more likely to provide eprints in ALL disciplines relatively quickly than relying on the eventual establishment of centralised archives in all subject areas. Our conclusion was, then, that this scenario is the one most likely to provide the maximum level of archived content, a major plank of any model for the provision of eprints nationwide in the UK. Our model was devised accordingly and would be equally appropriate anywhere else in the world. Alma Swan

1 0

librarian vacancy at IIM Lucknow
by Prof. N. Laxman Rao. 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT LUCKNOW Indian Institute of Management Lucknow invites applications for the post of Librarian in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-375-16500/- Essential Qualifications: The applicant should be possessing: (a) Masters Degree in Library Science/Information Science or Associateship in Information Science, conducted by DRTC/INSDOC. Candidates with a Doctoral Degree will be given preference. (b) 10 years experience as Librarian/Dy. Librarian in an academic or research institution, with atleast 3 years in the immediate lower scale. (c) Preference will be given to the applicants who have been associated with the development of libraries in technical subjects and also who have sound and practical knowledge/experience of computer application in the management of a modern library in a highly automated, integrated, and networked environment. Note: 1. The reservation criteria and the percentage thereof for SC/ST, OBC and Physically Handicapped/Ex-servicemen will be as per current Central Govt. Orders. Applicants are required to attach the necessary certificates in this regard as prescribed by the Govt. of India. 2. Post carries Dearness Allowance and other allowances as applicable to Central Government employees. 3. Persons working in Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector Undertakings etc, should send their applications either through PROPER CHANNEL or should furnish a NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE at the time of interview. 4. Candidates called for interview will be paid 2-tier AC to and fro railway fares by the shortest route. How to apply: Please send the detailed resume containing name, fathers name, date of birth, qualification, experience etc alongwith attested photocopies of certificates of educational qualifications and a recent passport size photograph pasted on the application. Applications should be sent within one week from the date of this advertisement to: Lucknow DIRECTOR 30.09.2004 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT PRABANDH NAGAR, OFF SITAPUR ROAD LUCKNOW 226 013 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 --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT LUCKNOW Indian Institute of Management Lucknow invites applications for the post of Librarian in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-375-16500/- Essential Qualifications : The applicant should be possessing: (a) Masters Degree in Library Science/Information Science or Associateship in Information Science, conducted by DRTC/INSDOC. Candidates with a Doctoral Degree will be given preference. (b) 10 years experience as Librarian/Dy. Librarian in an academic or research institution, with atleast 3 years in the immediate lower scale. (c) Preference will be given to the applicants who have been associated with the development of libraries in technical subjects and also who have sound and practical knowledge/experience of computer application in the management of a modern library in a highly automated, integrated, and networked environment. Note: 1. The reservation criteria and the percentage thereof for SC/ST, OBC and Physically Handicapped/Ex-servicemen will be as per current Central Govt. Orders. Applicants are required to attach the necessary certificates in this regard as prescribed by the Govt. of India. 2. Post carries Dearness Allowance and other allowances as applicable to Central Government employees. 3. Persons working in Government/Semi-Government/Public Sector Undertakings etc, should send their applications either through PROPER CHANNEL or should furnish a NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE at the time of interview. 4. Candidates called for interview will be paid 2-tier AC to and fro railway fares by the shortest route. How to apply: Please send the detailed resume containing name, fathers name, date of birth, qualification, experience etc alongwith attested photocopies of certificates of educational qualifications and a recent passport size photograph pasted on the application. Applications should be sent within one week from the date of this advertisement to: Lucknow DIRECTOR 30.09.2004 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT PRABANDH NAGAR, OFF SITAPUR ROAD LUCKNOW 226 013 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 http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21626/*http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

1 0

Temporary Library Trainees at J R D Tata Memorial Library, IISc, Bangalore 560012 (fwd)
by uma jaganath 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

Dear Colleagues, Kindly bring this advertisement to the notice of interested Graduates in Library and Information Science and recommend potential candidates. Openings for the position of Temporary Library Trainees at J R D Tata Memorial Library, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012 Applications are invited from the candidates with minimum first class in Master of Library and Information Science and well versed in Computer applications. The trainees get a fixed stipend of Rs.4000/- per month. The interested candidates are requested to send their Bio-data by e-mail before 10th October 2004 to: uma(a)library.iisc.ernet.in Dr. Uma Jagannath Deputy Librarian J R D Tata Memorial Library Indian Institute of Science Bangalore 560012 Tel.No. 22932868 E-Mail: uma(a)library.iisc.ernet.in

1 0

FW: [BOAI] Re: Please Register All OA Institutional Archives
by Subbiah Arunachalam 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

-----Original Message----- From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 4:46 PM Subject: [BOAI] Re: Please Register All OA Institutional Archives "Please Register All OA Institutional Archives" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3715.html On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Jan Velterop wrote: > There is this beautiful statistic of how many publishers allow, in > various shades and colours, self-archiving. http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php > Is there information available about how many, what percentage, > or which institutes actually have an (active, i.e. not shelved) open > institutional archive for self-archiving? Having that information could > help enormously in the campaign to speed up open access. Any pointers > to such information? Yes, there certainly is! There is the Institutional Archives Registry (created and maintained by Tim Brody at Southampton), which lists OAI archives not only by country and archive type and software used http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse but also the content size and growth curves for each individual archive http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?page=all as well as the total growth rate for archives and contents across all the OAI archives http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=analysis All institutions are strongly encouraged to register their OAI archives at: http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=add and to make sure their archive has an OAI-PMH interface so its content size can be harvested and counted by http://celestial.eprints.org/ They are also encouraged to declare and share their institutional self-archiving policy at: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php Stevan Harnad FW: [BOAI] Re: Please Register All OA Institutional Archives -----Original Message----- From: Stevan Harnad [ mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk ] Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 4:46 PM Subject: [BOAI] Re: Please Register All OA Institutional Archives "Please Register All OA Institutional Archives" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3715.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3715.html On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Jan Velterop wrote: > There is this beautiful statistic of how many publishers allow, in > various shades and colours, self-archiving. http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php > Is there information available about how many, what percentage, > or which institutes actually have an (active, i.e. not shelved) open > institutional archive for self-archiving? Having that information could > help enormously in the campaign to speed up open access. Any pointers > to such information? Yes, there certainly is! There is the Institutional Archives Registry (created and maintained by Tim Brody at Southampton), which lists OAI archives not only by country and archive type and software used http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=browse but also the content size and growth curves for each individual archive http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?page=all http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?page=all as well as the total growth rate for archives and contents across all the OAI archives http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=analysis http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=analysis All institutions are strongly encouraged to register their OAI archives at: http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=add http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?action=add and to make sure their archive has an OAI-PMH interface so its content size can be harvested and counted by http://celestial.eprints.org/ http://celestial.eprints.org/ They are also encouraged to declare and share their institutional self-archiving policy at: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php Stevan Harnad

1 0

FW: [BOAI] How To Support Institutional OA Archive Start-Up and O A Content Provision
by Subbiah Arunachalam 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

Friends: Stevan Harnad suggests how donor agencies can facilitate setting up interoperable institutional archives. We can adopt his suggestions for setting up such archives in India. Of course, one need not trouble the Southampton team for help; NCSI at IISc has all the expertise and experience needed. Indeed, Dr Rajashekar has introduced some welcome improvements to the Eprints software. Best wishes. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] -----Original Message----- From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 6:36 PM To: AmSci Forum Cc: liblicense-l(a)lists.yale.edu Subject: [BOAI] How To Support Institutional OA Archive Start-Up and OA Content Provision On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Jean-Claude Guedon wrote: > Stevan, How would you go about funding the conversion of individual > institutions such as universities? > > How would you use funding to achieve "the implementation of official > institutional self-archiving *policies*"? > > As a member of the Information Sub-Board of OSI, I would be interested > in seeing a series of concrete tactics and strategies in this regard. I am delighted that OSI asks, at last! The answer is quite simple, and completely analogous to the rationale for the funding that is already being provided and recommended by OSI, JISC and others in order to help start up and fill OA journals: (I) First, determine the start-up cost of creating an institutional OA Archive (including any requisite departmental/disciplinary modularization and customisation). (Southampton can help provide you with the actual figures; they have the most extensive experience with this.) (II) Second, offer to institutions -- exactly the way it is now being offered to journals and to authors -- to subsidise all or part of the cost of creating the archive as well as of depositing the papers, but only: (III) ON CONDITION that the institution adopts and implements an official self-archiving policy http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php If you wish, Southampton University can also provide an instructional/informational package on institutional self-archiving consisting of: (i) the OSI Handbook on how and why to create and fill Institutional OA Archives http://software.eprints.org/handbook/ (ii) information on the size of the OA citation-impact advantage to be expected from self-archiving http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html (iii) information on the current growth rate in the number and size of institutional OA archives http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php (iv) information on journals' self-archiving policies http://romeo.eprints.org/ (v) information on other institutions' self-archiving policies: http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php (vi) information on how institutional OA self-archiving databases can be used to measure and evaluate individual and institutional research performance and impact: http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi (vii) information on how to answer users' prima facie questions about self-archiving http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ (viii) information on current national initiatives to mandate self-archiving: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/3990 3.htm http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp108&r_n=hr636.108&sel=TOC_33 8641& (ix) Powerpoints for archive administrators and users, explaining the rationale for self-archiving http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.ppt And last, here are 5 of the reasons for OSI (and other funders interested in supporting OA) to subsidise institutional OA archive start-up costs: (1) The cost of subsidising the conversion of an institution to OA self-archiving is far less than the cost of subsidising the conversion of a journal to OA-publishing. (2) The return -- in annual number of OA articles -- on subsidising the conversion of one institution to self-archiving is far greater than the return on converting one journal, and far more likely to propagate to other institutions of its own accord. (3) Converting one institution to OA self-archiving (unlike converting one journal to OA publishing) propagates over all institutional departments/disciplines. (*This is also the reason why it is so important that the national self-archiving mandates should be for distributed institutional self-archiving, as recommended by the UK Select Committee, rather than for central self-archiving, as recommended by the US House Committee.*) (4) The cost -- per resulting OA article -- of subsidising author OA self-archiving (by providing a start-up proxy archiving service to help or do it for them) is incomparably lower than the cost -- per resulting OA article -- of subsidising author OA publishing costs. (5) Converting institutions to self-archiving not only provides immediate OA for far more articles, but it also paves the way for a possible (*not certain*!) eventual transition to OA publishing in a gradual, anarchic way that generates far less resistance and far more OA -- along with more time and scope for evolution and adaptation -- than trying to convert directly journal by journal. "The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3378.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#4.2 Stevan Harnad FW: [BOAI] How To Support Institutional OA Archive Start-Up and OA Content Provision Friends: Stevan Harnad suggests how donor agencies can facilitate setting up interoperable institutional archives. We can adopt his suggestions for setting up such archives in India. Of course, one need not trouble the Southampton team for help; NCSI at IISc has all the expertise and experience needed. Indeed, Dr Rajashekar has introduced some welcome improvements to the Eprints software. Best wishes. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] -----Original Message----- From: Stevan Harnad [ mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk ] Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 6:36 PM To: AmSci Forum Cc: liblicense-l(a)lists.yale.edu Subject: [BOAI] How To Support Institutional OA Archive Start-Up and OA Content Provision On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Jean-Claude Guedon wrote: > Stevan, How would you go about funding the conversion of individual > institutions such as universities? > > How would you use funding to achieve "the implementation of official > institutional self-archiving *policies*"? > > As a member of the Information Sub-Board of OSI, I would be interested > in seeing a series of concrete tactics and strategies in this regard. I am delighted that OSI asks, at last! The answer is quite simple, and completely analogous to the rationale for the funding that is already being provided and recommended by OSI, JISC and others in order to help start up and fill OA journals: (I) First, determine the start-up cost of creating an institutional OA Archive (including any requisite departmental/disciplinary modularization and customisation). (Southampton can help provide you with the actual figures; they have the most extensive experience with this.) (II) Second, offer to institutions -- exactly the way it is now being offered to journals and to authors -- to subsidise all or part of the cost of creating the archive as well as of depositing the papers, but only: (III) ON CONDITION that the institution adopts and implements an official self-archiving policy http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php If you wish, Southampton University can also provide an instructional/informational package on institutional self-archiving consisting of: (i) the OSI Handbook on how and why to create and fill Institutional OA Archives http://software.eprints.org/handbook/ http://software.eprints.org/handbook/ (ii) information on the size of the OA citation-impact advantage to be expected from self-archiving http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html (iii) information on the current growth rate in the number and size of institutional OA archives http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php (iv) information on journals' self-archiving policies http://romeo.eprints.org/ http://romeo.eprints.org/ (v) information on other institutions' self-archiving policies: http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php (vi) information on how institutional OA self-archiving databases can be used to measure and evaluate individual and institutional research performance and impact: http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://citebase.eprints.org/ http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi http://paracite.eprints.org/cgi-bin/rae_front.cgi (vii) information on how to answer users' prima facie questions about self-archiving http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ (viii) information on current national initiatives to mandate self-archiving: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399… http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399… http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp108&r_n=hr636.108&sel=TOC_3… http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp108&r_n=hr636.108&sel=TOC_3… (ix) Powerpoints for archive administrators and users, explaining the rationale for self-archiving http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.ppt http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/openaccess.ppt And last, here are 5 of the reasons for OSI (and other funders interested in supporting OA) to subsidise institutional OA archive start-up costs: (1) The cost of subsidising the conversion of an institution to OA self-archiving is far less than the cost of subsidising the conversion of a journal to OA-publishing. (2) The return -- in annual number of OA articles -- on subsidising the conversion of one institution to self-archiving is far greater than the return on converting one journal, and far more likely to propagate to other institutions of its own accord. (3) Converting one institution to OA self-archiving (unlike converting one journal to OA publishing) propagates over all institutional departments/disciplines. (*This is also the reason why it is so important that the national self-archiving mandates should be for distributed institutional self-archiving, as recommended by the UK Select Committee, rather than for central self-archiving, as recommended by the US House Committee.*) (4) The cost -- per resulting OA article -- of subsidising author OA self-archiving (by providing a start-up proxy archiving service to help or do it for them) is incomparably lower than the cost -- per resulting OA article -- of subsidising author OA publishing costs. (5) Converting institutions to self-archiving not only provides immediate OA for far more articles, but it also paves the way for a possible (*not certain*!) eventual transition to OA publishing in a gradual, anarchic way that generates far less resistance and far more OA -- along with more time and scope for evolution and adaptation -- than trying to convert directly journal by journal. "The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3378.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3378.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#4.2 http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#4.2 Stevan Harnad

1 0

FW: [SOAN] SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 10/2/04
by Subbiah Arunachalam 03 Oct '04

03 Oct '04

Dear Friends: The NIH, the world's leading funding agency, is receiving comments on its published plan for mandating all NIH-funded research to be made available through open access [by authors archiving the full text of their research papers in PubMed Central] up to 16 November 2004. Many leading US institutions have already supported the NIH plan. These include the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association of Universities and the US Chamber of Commerce. Twenty-five Nobel Laureates have also supported the initiative. As the NIH plan of making available all research papers resulting from NIH funding freely accessible will benefit scientists and scholars in India (and elsewhere) immensely, we should also express our support to NIH. I urge all scientists and librarians in India and other developing counties to send a letter to NIH supporting the initiative. For the same reason, I urge the InterAcademy Council, the InterAcademy Panel and TWAS and the science academies of all developing countries to send letters to NIH supporting their plan. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] -----Original Message----- From: Peter Suber [mailto:peters@earlham.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 5:45 PM To: SPARC Open Access Newsletter Subject: [SOAN] SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 10/2/04 Welcome to the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #78 October 2, 2004 Read this issue online http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-02-04.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-02-04.htm> A busy month of action on the NIH open-access plan A lot has happened with the NIH open-access plan since the last issue of the newsletter. Here are the major developments in chronological order. I comment on their significance afterwards. (1) On September 3, the NIH released its own draft policy of the plan for a 60 day period of public comment. (Until September 3, all we had was a July 14 directive from the House Appropriations Committee for the NIH to produce a plan.) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html> (2) Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) and Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) engaged in a "colloquy" about the House Appropriations Committee report language proposing the NIH open-access plan (Congressional Record, September 8, p. H6833). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H6833 &dbname=2004_record> &page=H6833&dbname=2004_record http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109474817 384019548 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947481 7384019548> (3) On September 9, the House of Representatives adopted the NIH recommendation in the House appropriations report by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 388-13. The recommendation then moved to the Senate. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109477904 271292882 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947790 4271292882> (4) Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman of the House Appropriations Labor-HHS Subcommittee (the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the NIH) decided not to include any language on the NIH plan in the Senate subcommittee report. (5) On September 17, the NIH plan was published in the Federal Register, for another 60 day period of public comment ending on November 16. This is the same text published in the NIH Guide on September 3 for a 60 day public comment period ending on November 2. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.gov /2004/04-21097.htm <http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.go v/2004/04-21097.htm> (6) On September 24, the NIH announced that the comment periods from the two postings of its plan (September 3 in the NIH Guide and September 17 in the Federal Register) had been merged. Now all comments are due on November 16, 2004 (60 days from the Federal Register publication). http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-070.html <http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-070.html> (7) Supporters have continued to sign on. Among the most notable are the American Association of Universities, the National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Together with the open letter from 25 American Nobel laureates in science, the AAU and NAS endorsements solidify the support from the American research community. The Alliance for Taxpayer Access embodies a large number of important endorsements in its rapidly growing membership list. ATA members now include an impressive range of patient and disease advocacy organizations, universities, laboratories, and libraries. The AAU endorsement of the NIH plan, September 27, 2004 http://www.aau.edu/issues/NIHPubAccProp.pdf <http://www.aau.edu/issues/NIHPubAccProp.pdf> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109638605 257442246 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963860 5257442246> The NAS endorsement, September 16, 2004 http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s09162004?OpenDocument <http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s09162004?OpenDocument> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109538076 633197157 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10953807 6633197157> The Chamber of Commerce endorsement, September 9, 2004 http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2004/september/04-121.htm <http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2004/september/04-121.htm> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109485115 393189098 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948511 5393189098> Alliance for Taxpayer Access membership list http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/member.html <http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/member.html> An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine endorsed the key elements of the plan: the open access and the six month embargo. In fact, it went further and endorsed OA for "all research articles, not just those funded by the NIH". NEJM qualified its support, however, by suggesting that the journals publishing these OA-archived articles should hold the copyrights. It argued that journals need copyrights in order to block the redistribution of mangled copies of the text, for example, one-sided extracts showing the advantages of a new drug without its disadvantages. (PS: I'm confident that the NIH funding contract will not take this right away from authors. Hence, it will be up to authors and journals whether authors will transfer this right to journals, just as it is today.) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/351/13/1343 <http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/351/13/1343> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109595555 027274057 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959555 5027274057> Even Elsevier, which doesn't support the plan overall, gave it a kind of backhanded endorsement. Bradie Metheny wrote in the September 8 issue of Washington Fax (accessible only to subscribers): "John Regazzi, managing director of marketing development for Elsevier, the world's largest publisher of journals, said no one can argue against giving the public access to NIH information; it is in the public interest. 'But how you do it is the key,' he said. '[The NIH proposal] is moving too fast,' Regazzi argued." (PS: I'd love to see other publishers start from the same premise that open access to this literature is in the public interest. We could then focus the debate on whether it is or isn't outweighed by other considerations. But on the whole other publishers are unwilling to make this obvious concession.) http://www.washingtonfax.com/p1/2004/20040908.html <http://www.washingtonfax.com/p1/2004/20040908.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109467038 405341529 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946703 8405341529> Here are few new questions and answers about the current state of play. * Why are there two or even three plans? The House Appropriations Committee language of July 14 makes some policy recommendations and directs the NIH to come up with its own plan by December 1 to implement them. The NIH issued a draft of its plan on September 3, for a 60 day period of public comment ending on November 2. The September 3 text was also published in the Federal Register on September 17, for another 60 public comment period ending on November 16. The NIH has since merged the two comment periods, with a single deadline of November 16. The new deadline will give the agency about two weeks after the comment period expires to digest the comments and finalize the plan language before the December 1 deadline. For the purpose of anticipating what the final plan will or will not provide, consult the NIH's text (the September 3 and September 17 versions are identical), and eventually consult the revised version of the text that emerges from the public comment period. * What does it mean that the NIH issued its plan so quickly? It's not so quick when you realize that it needs to collect and digest public comments before producing a final plan by December 1. However, it was able to produce the draft plan to fit this timetable because it had already been thinking about the issues for a long time. For example, it presented a report to Congress on OA issues in May 2004, and had already gathered a wide range of views in three stakeholder meetings in July and August. The time had come to open the process to public comment. The prompt release of the plan means that the NIH already supports open access based on its prior deliberations. Congress is not compelling NIH to act against its better judgment. Despite the prescriptive language in the House appropriations report, this is less a Congressional mandate than a convergence of views. Access to Biomedical Research Information (the NIH report to Congress, May 2004) http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/docs/NIH_access_report.pdf <http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/docs/NIH_access_report.pdf> * What are differences between the July House report and the September NIH plan? (1) The September plan drops the provision in the July report requiring immediate OA if the NIH paid any part of the article's publication costs. The new plan simply says that the OA edition will appear six months after publication "or sooner if the publisher agrees". Comment: The public interest would be better served by immediate OA than a six month embargo, but I can accept the embargo as a political necessity to get the plan adopted. The new change gives publishers even more than the original House version, guaranteeing that the embargo will never be shorter than six months without their consent. If this concession does not reduce publisher opposition, then it was not worth making and should be revoked. (2) The September plan gives new detail on exactly what grantees must deposit in PMC: "electronic copies of all final version manuscripts" accepted at peer-reviewed journals, when "final manuscript" is defined as "the author's version resulting after all modifications due to the peer review process." But then the September plan adds a new provision: "If the publisher requests, the author's final version of the publication will be replaced in the PMC archive by the final publisher's copy with an appropriate link to the publisher's electronic database." Comment: This is welcome detail. Giving publishers the option to replace the unofficial author version with the official journal version is a very good idea. Because they needn't exercise the option, publishers can't complain. Because exercising it would improve the archived OA literature, it can only help. In its endorsement of the plan, the National Academy of Sciences strongly urged publishers to take advantage of this option. (3) The September plan gives new detail on what kind of NIH funding triggers the OA plan. The plan applies to NIH "grantees and supported Principal Investigators" and covers "all research grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, as well as National Research Service Award (NRSA) fellowships." The OA policy will apply to all articles whose underlying research "was supported in whole or in part by NIH funding." Comment: This is welcome detail. The House report fudged the "all or part" question, and the NIH has clarified it in the right decision. (4) The September plan drops the condition in the July report that the policy will only apply to articles accepted by a "scientific journal listed in the NLM's PubMed directory". Comment: This is two-sided. On the one hand, it closes a worrisome loophole. Now the plan will cover NIH-funded research published in any peer-reviewed journal, not just the portion published in certain journals. On the other hand, it opens the door to criticism that the quality of PMC will be diluted by poor publications. Since this criticism is easily answered, NIH made the right call. How do we answer this criticism? All articles covered by this plan will be based on research proposals that made it through the tough NIH vetting process prior to funding; taxpayers should have open access to all articles based on NIH-funded research anyway, regardless of their quality; and even the inclusion of occasional weak articles in PMC does nothing to detract from the strong ones. (5) The House report language wanted the NIH to develop a policy "requiring" deposit in PMC, but the NIH plan will merely "request" that grantees deposit their articles in PMC. Comment: It's not clear whether this word-change is significant. For example, two members of the House committee that wrote the requirement-language said in public, for the record, on the House floor, that the NIH draft is "consistent" with their own language. (See the Istook-Regula colloquy, below.) If they intended a hard and fast requirement and saw the NIH propose an optional request, then they wouldn't have given this endorsement. Moreover, the NIH will enforce its "request", which gives it at least some of the flavor of a requirement. The NIH will monitor grantee compliance and use non-compliance as a factor when deciding whether to award subsequent or follow-up funds. Since serious researchers don't expect to do just one fundable project, they won't risk future funding by disregarding the NIH OA condition (even if they oppose OA, which is unlikely). For the same reason, publishers who encourage authors to disregard the OA policy, on the ground that it is a mere request, would be harming those authors by exposing them to NIH sanctions. For both reasons --legislative intent and operation in practice-- it seems that there's no bright line between requests and requirements here. If that's true, then the softening of the language may just be diplomatic cordiality. However, if the softening of the language is significant, and compliance is more optional than the sanction makes it appear, then it's a major concession to publishers and a major departure from the public interest in open access. If further developments make clear that this is the proper way to interpret the language, then publishers should drop their opposition. If they don't, then the concession was not worth making and should be revoked. I once drafted a model OA policy for funding agencies that included a requirement (or what I called a requirement), not just a request. My chosen enforcement mechanism was to have non-compliant grantees repay their grants. To this day, the only criticism I've received on the policy was directed to the enforcement mechanism. Several scientists pointed out that denying subsequent funds would suffice. If so, then the NIH's enforcement mechanism will also suffice, regardless whether we use request or requirement language. Model open-access policy for foundation research grants http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/foundations.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/foundations.htm> (6) Finally, while the July report contained some background principles and goals of the House Appropriations Committee, the September plan articulates some goals and intentions of the NIH. I count at least these eight: (a) the goal to improve the health of Americans; (b) the goal "to share and support public access to the results and accomplishments of the activities that [the NIH] funds"; (c) the goal to improve access to scientific information for "other scientists, health care providers, students, teachers, and the many millions of Americans searching the web to obtain credible health-related information"; (d) the intention to "balance this need with the ability of journals and publishers to preserve their critical role in the peer review, editing and scientific quality control process"; (d) the intention to monitor the "economic and business implications" of the plan in order to avoid "compromising the quality of the information being provided"; (f) the intention to "maintain a dialogue with publishers, investigators, and representatives from scientific associations and the public to ensure the success of this initiative"; (g) the intention to monitor compliance with the new policy and to use compliance as one factor in evaluating subsequent applications for NIH funds; and (h) the intention to "consider options to ensure that grantees' budgets are not unduly affected by this policy", for example, by journals that impose "unreasonable or disproportionate charges" on grantees. * What was the "colloquy" on the floor of the House (September 8) and what does it mean? A colloquy is a scripted dialogue for entering additional language into the Congressional Record. It provides legislative history on a bill without amending the bill. The colloquy on September 8 was between Representatives Ernest Istook (R-OK) and Ralph Regula (R-OH), who are both members of the House subcommittee that originally proposed the NIH open-access plan. Here's roughly what their dialogue added to the legislative history: concern about rising journal prices; concern about diminishing public access to federally funded research; support for the principle of free online access to publicly-funded research; support for Elias Zerhouni in seeking comments from three stakeholder meetings; support for the NIH's speed in preparing and releasing its September 3 draft plan; and confirmation that the NIH's September 3 draft is consistent with the language in the House appropriations report. All of this is for the good. Text of the Istook-Regula colloquy on the House appropriations report, September 8, 2004 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H6833 &dbname=2004_record> &page=H6833&dbname=2004_record http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109474817 384019548 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947481 7384019548> * What does it mean that Sen. Arlen Specter has decided not to include a version of the House NIH recommendation in the Senate appropriations bill? The bad news is that no Senate version of the House language will be adopted. The good news is that no Senate version will be amended or defeated. (Sen. Specter is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the subcommittee determining the budget appropriation for the NIH.) The fate of the House language will be worked out in a conference committee. This is what happens whenever the House and Senate appropriations bills differ. Because the Senate action, or non-action, is compatible with any resolution in the conference committee, and because Sen. Specter knows this perfectly well, we should infer nothing about his support or opposition to the House plan from this decision. He's keeping his options open and shifting the resolution of the question from a larger chamber to a smaller one. This step does not help supporters more than opponents or vice versa. If the Senate had included the House language and voted it up, that would have been best for us and worst for our opponents, since it would have settled the question in our favor and removed it from the conference committee. But if the Senate had included the language and then watered it down with amendments, or defeated it, that would have been worst for us and best for our opponents. Both outcomes are now closed, for both sides. The members of the conference committee are yet to be named. But at this stage the Senators most worth reaching with your views are Specter (R-PA), Harkin (D-IA), Stevens (R-AK), Byrd (D-WV), Frist (R-TN), and Daschle (D-SD). If you have a relationship with any of these Senators or their offices, or if you reside in one of their states, then your phone call, fax, or email would be a big help. Senator Specter first disclosed his decision on September 3, in an interview with Rick Weiss of the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64389-2004Sep5.html <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64389-2004Sep5.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109447185 490556167 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944718 5490556167> The AAAS is the only stakeholder group I've seen to make a public comment on Specter's decision. The association supports the Senate omission of the language but also supports the NIH procedure of gathering public opinion on its draft policy. One reason may be that the omitted House language would have required immediate OA in some circumstances and the draft NIH policy would not. (PS: Other publishers should see that the NIH text is much more favorable to them than the original House language and work for its support.) http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nih05s.htm <http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nih05s.htm> (Scroll down about half way.) Senate Appropriations Committee http://appropriations.senate.gov/index.htm <http://appropriations.senate.gov/index.htm> Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the NIH) http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/laborhhs.htm <http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/laborhhs.htm> * What does it mean that the NIH draft appeared on the "NIH Guide" page, and not originally in the Federal Register? The NIH plan is a proposed revision of in-house agency guidelines for awarding research grants. The NIH already has the authority to revise its own guidelines. It doesn't need new statutes or regulations to give it this authority. (The fact that the plan eventually appeared in the Federal Register as well doesn't change this fact.) Hence, if Congress does not act, then the NIH could act on its own. However, the NIH benefits from Congressional support, and Congressional opposition would certainly cause it to rethink its draft policy. The NIH Guide web page http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/ <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/> * What will the NIH plan cost? Critics of the NIH plan have projected absurdly high estimates of the plan's costs and then protested that the high costs would unduly diminish the NIH funds available for research grants. NIH officials repeatedly knocked down these high estimates in public meetings but in late September their estimates finally appeared in print. Quoting Janet Coleman in the Washington Fax for September 27, 2004 (online access limited to subscribers): "Preliminary estimates of the cost of offering all NIH-funded research studies on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central digital library are around $2.5 million and not the $100 million some critics have suggested, NLM Director Donald Lindberg, MD, said. NLM National Center for Biotechnology Information Director David Lipman 'worked up a budget of actual estimated costs...multiplied by everything under the sun and came up with $2.5 million,' Lindberg told the NLM Board of Regents Sept. 21." http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109638765 074802248 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963876 5074802248> This puts the annual cost of the OA archiving at about 0.008 % of the NIH's annual budget. * What are the current priorities for what supporters should do to help the cause? Above all, send comments to the NIH about its draft policy during the 60 day public comment period. Comments will be accepted until November 16, 2004, and may be submitted by email or web form. Get your friends and colleagues to submit comments. Get your departments and institutions to submit comments. Submit comments by email PublicAccess(a)nih.gov Submit comments by web form http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm> If you belong to a U.S.-based organization (university, department, laboratory, library, journal, publisher, patient or disease advocacy organization, etc.) then persuade your group to join the Alliance for Taxpayer Access. It costs nothing to join and gives the ATA clout when making the case for open access to taxpayer-funded research. http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/ <http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/> If you are an individual, see the ATA recommendations for individual actions that could help the cause. Among the most effective options are sending a letter, fax, or email to your Senators expressing support for the NIH plan. http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/you.html <http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/you.html> Comments and letters from U.S. citizens and U.S.-based organizations will carry more weight with the NIH and the U.S. Senate than comments from others, but the process is not limited to Americans. * For other questions and answers on the NIH plan, see my FAQ, which I've enlarged several times during the past month. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm> The NIH now has its own page on the evolving OA plan. http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/index.htm <http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/index.htm> For news stories on the NIH plan since the last issue of the newsletter, see the section on major stories, below. ---------- A glimpse of our history Here are some excerpts from a 1974 _Science_ article and two subsequent letters to the editor. I'll keep my own voice out until the end. Thanks to Christopher Kelty, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Rice University and co-founder of the open-access Connexions project, for unearthing these pieces and bringing them to my attention. * John Walsh, "Journals: Photocopying Is Not the Only Problem," _Science_, March 29, 1974, pp. 1274-1275, 1277. [...] Attention has been focused on the photocopying issue by a suit brought by the Baltimore publisher of scientific and medical journals, Williams & Wilkins, charging the National Library of Medicine and the library of the National Institutes of Health with copyright infringement via photocopying. The most recent round of court action favored the defendants, permitting them to continue photocopying. [...] Reduced to its essentials, the dispute over photocopying casts scientific publishers and research libraries as the major antagonists. The libraries want the right to continue to provide a single photocopy for a reader who requests it. The limit on material is generally accepted to be a single article from a journal. The publishers argue that the mass, mail-order photocopying by major research libraries deprives the journals of the revenue necessary to cover editorial and printing costs and, in the case of commercial publishers, return on investment. They contend that if things go on this way there will be no journals to copy. [...] Libraries, for their part, are experiencing severe strains on their general budgets from inflation and are beginning to rebel at soaring journal costs. Some libraries have cut purchases of scientific books and monographs in order to keep up periodical purchases. Others have conducted "use surveys" on technical periodicals and dropped the subscriptions on the least used. Even larger and more affluent research libraries --mostly university and large metropolitan libraries-- are finding ways to share the burden imposed by increasing costs and greater numbers of scientific journals (one thing this means is a bigger photocopying network). [...] [O]bservers say that a growing trend among both commercial and nonprofit publishers is toward obtaining an increasing portion of income from subscription rates levied on libraries. Alarm over these trends in journal publishing are expressed fairly freely by librarians and some academics. A recent public example was provided by a letter signed by 11 university chemists from six countries (the problem is international) published in the 10 December 1973 _Chemical and Engineering News_....Particular criticism was aimed at commercial publishers who were accused of taking advantage of the fact that libraries are a "captive audience" by setting high subscription prices on new journals. [...] In view of the importance of journals to the scientific enterprise, it is surprising that the cost crisis affecting journals and libraries has not prompted more efforts at corrective action. The photocopying issue has claimed primary attention but other journal problems are enforcing the need for new answers to the old questions of who pays and how much. * Curtis G. Benjamin, "Support for Williams & Wilkins," _Science_, June 28, 1974, pp. 1330-1331. [A letter to the editor] [Benjamin names some society publishers offering financial support to the plaintiffs in the Williams & Wilkins lawsuit.] This evidence of professional society concern exposes an odd conflict of interest that needs to be pondered thoughtfully by all scientists. While many individual scientists, along with many librarians and other information specialists, are pushing hard for exempted privileges of photocopying for scientific and educational uses, the officers of their professional organizations (and especially their publications officers) are drawing back from the sure prospect of resulting losses of subscription and advertising income to their already straitened journals. And, strangely enough, many members of the societies that are supporting the Williams & Wilkins appeal are also supporting the National Education Assocation's Ad Hoc Committee of Educational Organizations and Institutions on Copyright Law Revision, a group that has made the loudest and most persistent demands for the broad special exemptions. Scientists should not confuse the rhetoric of "free flow of information" with the economics of "flow of free information." There is no such thing as free information; somebody has to pay the cost of any system for the organization and dissemination of science information. The privilege of "free" photocopying simply is not compatible with the economics of book and journal publishing. Why then, do so many scientists seem to think they can have their cake and eat it too? * Ralph D. Tanz, "Copyright Laws," _Science_, August 30, 1974, p. 735. [A letter to the editor] Curtis G. Benjamin's letter (28 June, p. 1331) in support of Williams & Wilkins' Supreme Court suit against the U.S. government for copyright infringement omits some of the problems on the other side of the fence. Just as publishing companies are faced with the financial squeeze attendant to inflation, so too are academic institutions. While costs have risen, departmental budgets have fallen further and further behind, and now new demands are placed on us to pay for the dissemination of information to our students. Publishers seem to be saying that if we are unable to pay, then our students have no right to receive information we deem necessary. But let us examine this a little further. Funds that made our research possible did not come from the publishers. Nor did the publishers assist us in writing the manuscripts. Indeed, they charge us for reprints, presumably make a profit selling their journals, and do not reimburse the authors for their efforts. Thus, the author does the fund raising, the thinking, the laboratory work, and the writing, and then the publishers claim ownership, apparently because it may make money for them. And to top it off, they now want us to pay for the privilege of using the articles we have published to teach our own students. I agree that the copyright laws should be revised, vesting ownership of an article either in the name(s) of the author(s) or the scientific society responsible for publication --but certainly not the publisher. * A few comments I'm reproducing these fragments primarily to note their uncanny similarities to the OA debates 30 years later. One of my first thoughts was that 1974 wasn't *that* long ago, so of course there would be similarities. (I was a grad student in 1974, for example, so it's roughly within the period of my own scholarly career.) But let it sink in. In 1974 there was no World Wide Web. In 1974, there wasn't even a BITNET, JANET, or USENET. If you date the internet to the adoption of TCP/IP, then there wasn't even an Internet. There was no PubMed or PubMed Central. Journal prices had only recently begun to rise faster than inflation. Photocopying machines were not just a disruptive technology; they were the cutting-edge technology for copying and sharing information. Williams & Wilkins v. The United States was decided against the publisher-plaintiffs in the U.S. Court of Claims in 1973. Immediately after their defeat, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court ruling in 1975. The decision in the Court of Claims, 487 F.2d 1345 (1973) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/c487F2d1345.html <http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/c487F2d1345.html> The decision in the Supreme Court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344 (1975) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=42 0&page=376> &court=us&vol=420&page=376 Williams & Wilkins is still an important precedent in U.S. copyright law. However, soon after the Supreme Court upheld the decision in favor of scientific photocopying, Congress enacted sweeping revisions of U.S. copyright law, lengthening copyright terms, abolishing the need to register or renew copyrights, and taking other steps that continue to hobble education and research. The Copyright Act of 1976 http://www.title17.com/contentLegMat/legmat.html <http://www.title17.com/contentLegMat/legmat.html> Although the debate from 1974 eerily recapitulates some of the debates still raging today, there is at least one important dissimilarity to point out. The contemporary debate is *not* about the boundaries of "fair use". Open-access advocates do not argue that providing OA to copyrighted works is already permitted by fair use; on the contrary, they argue that OA to copyrighted works requires the copyright-holder's consent. ---------- A haiku introduction to open access Once I started writing haiku about open access, I couldn't stop. Here's a mercifully small sampling. Believe me, the ones I've omitted are even more atrocious than the ones I've included. If you publish it, and readers can't afford it, does it make a sound? They don't pay authors, editors or referees. Then they want the rights. Unlike musicians, scholars consent to OA without losing dough. OA articles are not without cost but are without price. Share perfect copies with a worldwide audience. Marginal cost, zip. I love print, paper. But I love searching, linking, using, sharing more. Libraries are caught: High prices, tight licences, profs who demand more. OA archiving takes a couple of minutes. So what's the problem? Authors determine where to submit their papers, whether to archive. OA and TA can coexist --til authors decide otherwise. Sure, change copyright and peer review. But OA doesn't have to wait. Yes, launch new journals. But OA through archiving doesn't have to wait. Don't say "author pays" when funders will pay the fee or journals waive it. P&T panels harm science if they demand the same-old, same-old. The current system evolved over centuries. So did dinosaurs. ---------- Major open access developments in September 2004 This is a selection of open-access developments since the last issue of the newsletter, taken from the Open Access News blog, which I write with other contributors and update daily. I give both the item URL and blog posting URL so that you can read the original story as well as what I or another blog contributor had to say about it. For other developments, the blog archive is browseable and searchable. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html> Here are the major stories from September * The NIH OA plan sees new developments, wide news coverage. * Two major decisions call for OA to data. * WIPO asked to consider two OA-friendly proposals. * Governments spend on OA infrastructure. * The Nature Publishing Group experiments with many kinds of wider access. * The NIH OA plan sees new developments, wide news coverage. For detail and analysis of recent developments on the NIH OA plan, see the lead story above. Here are some articles and news stories from the past month. Janet Coleman, Open access would cost NIH roughly $2.5 million, agency's Lipman estimates, Washington Fax, September 27, 2004. http://www.washingtonfax.com/ <http://www.washingtonfax.com/> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109638765 074802248 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963876 5074802248> Anon., A new alliance to support open access, Access, September 2004. http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=10 <http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=10> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109629039 979057329 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962903 9979057329> AAAS, Update on Open/Public Access, September 14, 2004. A PPT slide show focusing on the position of the AAAS and _Science_. http://www.aau.edu/issues/openaccess.pdf <http://www.aau.edu/issues/openaccess.pdf> Mark Hermodson, The Open Access Debate, Protein Science, 13, 10 (2004) pp. 2569-2570. http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/full/13/10/2569?ct <http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/full/13/10/2569?ct> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109614544 881665941 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10961454 4881665941> Jan Velterop, publisher and director of BioMed Central, wrote an open letter (September 23, 2004) to Elias Zerhouni in support of the NIH open-access plan. http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/miscell/?issue=20 <http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/miscell/?issue=20> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109603724 571532730 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10960372 4571532730> Jeffrey M. Drazen and Gregory D. Curfman, Public Access to Biomedical Research, New England Journal of Medicine, September 23, 2004. An editorial. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/351/13/1343 <http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/351/13/1343> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109595555 027274057 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959555 5027274057> Anon., Publishing for Nothing, Science for Free, DCLnews, September 21, 2004. http://www.dclab.com/stm_open_access.asp <http://www.dclab.com/stm_open_access.asp> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109588406 259551449 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958840 6259551449> Peter Suber, Public should have free access to research it funds, Tallahassee Democrat, September 21, 2004. An op-ed for the Knight Ridder Tribune papers. It also appeared in Jewish World Review on September 23. http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/9714842.htm <http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/9714842.htm> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0904/research_access.asp <http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0904/research_access.asp> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109577149 633629144 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957714 9633629144> Rudy Baum, Socialized Science, Chemical & Engineering News, September 20, 2004. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/8238edit.html <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/8238edit.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109572494 461776751 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957249 4461776751> Also see the STLQ thread on Baum's editorial, Is Open Access Socialized Science? http://stlq.info/archives/001593.html#001593 <http://stlq.info/archives/001593.html#001593> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109588622 152722748 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958862 2152722748> The Alliance for Taxpayer Access issued a press release (September 17, 2004) praising the National Academy of Sciences for its endorsement of the NIH open-access plan. https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1039.html <https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1039.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109545143 660311621 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10954514 3660311621> Anon., NIH floats open-access plan amidst objections, Research Research, September 13, 2004. http://www.researchresearch.co.uk/news.cfm?pagename=newsStory <http://www.researchresearch.co.uk/news.cfm?pagename=newsStory&type=default& elementID=43047> &type=default&elementID=43047 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109586590 183212571 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958659 0183212571> Susan Morrissey, NIH Unveils Draft Open-Access Plan, Chemical and Engineering News, September 13, 2004. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8237/8237notw4.html <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8237/8237notw4.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109542965 327620905 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10954296 5327620905> Barbara Quint, NIH Requires Open Access for Its Funded Medical Research, Information Today, September 13, 2004. http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb040913-1.shtml <http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb040913-1.shtml> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109508283 544898644 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950828 3544898644> Bob Roehr, NIH moves towards open access, BMJ, September 11, 2004. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/590-c <http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/590-c> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109568305 860201276 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10956830 5860201276> Jocelyn Kaiser, NIH Proposes 6-Month Public Access to Papers, Science, September 10, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org.ezp1.harvard.edu/cgi/content/full/305/5690/1548b <http://www.sciencemag.org.ezp1.harvard.edu/cgi/content/full/305/5690/1548b> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109482505 822441231 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948250 5822441231> Taxpayers deserve to see for free medical research backed by federal dollars, an unsigned editorial in the September 10 Fort-Wayne News Sentinel supporting the NIH plan. http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/9628610.htm <http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/9628610.htm> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109473436 986708610 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947343 6986708610> Free up medical research, an unsigned editorial in the September 9 Orlando Sentinel supporting the NIH plan. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped093090904sep09,1,184766 8.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines <http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped093090904sep09,1,18476 68.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109473436 986708610 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947343 6986708610> Experiments in publishing, Nature 431, 111, September 9, 2004. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7005/f ull/431111a_fs.html <http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7005/ full/431111a_fs.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109467460 702473562 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946746 0702473562> Bradie Metheny, NIH open access publishing policy receives initial good marks from most stakeholders, Washington Fax, September 8, 2004. http://www.washingtonfax.com/p1/2004/20040908.html <http://www.washingtonfax.com/p1/2004/20040908.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109467038 405341529 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946703 8405341529> Geoff Brumfiel, Biomedical agency floats open-access plan, News@Nature, September 8, 2004. http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040906/full/431115a.html <http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040906/full/431115a.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109466924 272737548 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946692 4272737548> Paula Park, NIH unveils open access draft, The Scientist, September 8, 2004. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040908/04/ <http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040908/04/> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109465913 812446658 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946591 3812446658> Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society, released the September 8 letter he wrote to Senators Arlen Specter and Tom Harkin, opposing the NIH OA plan. http://www.dcprinciples.org/senateletter.pdf <http://www.dcprinciples.org/senateletter.pdf> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109484858 128373499 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948485 8128373499> Jocelyn Kaiser, NIH Proposes Public Access to Papers, Science Magazine, September 7, 2004 http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2004/907/2 <http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2004/907/2> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109465384 835413800 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946538 4835413800> Susan Morrisey, NIH Unveils Draft Plan, Chemical & Engineering News, September 7, 2004. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8236/8236nihaccess.html <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8236/8236nihaccess.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109460139 261753475 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946013 9261753475> Anon., NIH schlägt Open Access Modell vor, Intern.de, September 7, 2004. http://www.intern.de/news/5989.html <http://www.intern.de/news/5989.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109459010 853259497 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945901 0853259497> Mary Mosquera, NIH plans public access to research results, Government Computer News, September 7, 2004. http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/27186-1.html <http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/27186-1.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109458889 648778823 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945888 9648778823> Dee Ann Divis, NIH proposes free research access, United Press International, September 6, 2004. http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040906-021956-5244r <http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040906-021956-5244r> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109457571 096940596 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945757 1096940596> Julianne Basinger, NIH Invites Comment on Proposal Requiring Free Online Access to Research It Supports, Chronicle of Higher Education, September 7, 2004. http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/09/2004090701n.htm <http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/09/2004090701n.htm> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109455931 979952944 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945593 1979952944> Ranty Islam, Das Geschäft mit dem Wissen, Die Welt, September 6, 2004. http://www.welt.de/data/2004/09/03/327429.html <http://www.welt.de/data/2004/09/03/327429.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109450415 940016272 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945041 5940016272> Rick Weiss, NIH Proposes Free Access For Public to Research Data, Washington Post, September 6, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64389-2004Sep5.html <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64389-2004Sep5.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109447185 490556167 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944718 5490556167> Susan Morrissey, NIH Weights Open Access, Chemical and Engineering News, September 6, 2004. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8236/8236notw6.html <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8236/8236notw6.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109447105 452661620 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944710 5452661620> Vivian Siegel released her August 5 letter to Elias Zerhouni in support of the NIH open-access plan. Siegel wrote on behalf of the Public Library of Science. http://www.plos.org/downloads/ZerhouniPLoS.pdf <http://www.plos.org/downloads/ZerhouniPLoS.pdf> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109440190 461351699 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944019 0461351699> Andy Gass, Open Access As Public Policy, Public Library of Science, released September 3 in advance of publication September 21 in the October issue of PLoS Biology. http://www.plos.org/downloads/OAPP.pdf <http://www.plos.org/downloads/OAPP.pdf> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109440133 385317289 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944013 3385317289> Nobel Winners, Library Groups Voice Support for Open Access at NIH, Library Journal, September 7, 2004. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA450576?display=breakingNews <http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA450576?display=breakingNews> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a109435129 351525456 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943512 9351525456> Danielle Belopotosky, Online federal library on health research sparks outcry, GovExec.com, September 3, 2004. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/090304td2.htm <http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/090304td2.htm> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a109433148 221262305 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943314 8221262305> Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information, NIH, September 3, 2004. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a109432941 068778859 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943294 1068778859> Jocelyn Kaiser, Zerhouni Plans a Nudge Toward Open Access, Science, September 3, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5689/1386b <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5689/1386b> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a109421440 346193034 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10942144 0346193034> Ushma Savla and John Hawley, Want the world to know? Publish here, The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 114 (2004) p. 602. http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/114/5/602 <http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/114/5/602> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a109414976 764527537 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10941497 6764527537> Nobelpreisträger fordern freien Zugang zu Forschungsergebnissen, Spiegel, September 1, 2004. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,316133,00.html <http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,316133,00.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a109414424 427731926 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10941442 4427731926> Four library associations --the ARL, ALA, AALL, and SLA-- released their August 31 letter to Elias Zerhouni in support of the NIH open-access plan. http://www.arl.org/info/openaccess/arlzerhouni.pdf <http://www.arl.org/info/openaccess/arlzerhouni.pdf> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109464359 073557830 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946435 9073557830> Anon., House Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill Includes "Open Access" Language, FASEB News, August 2004 (scroll to p. 4). http://www.faseb.org/opa/newsletter/8x04/august_04_nl.pdf <http://www.faseb.org/opa/newsletter/8x04/august_04_nl.pdf> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109638229 378765946 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963822 9378765946> * Two major decisions call for OA to data. Each of these decisions would deserve attention in its own right. By occurring in the same month, they show the momentum for the idea of OA to data --more momentum, it seems, for the similar but different idea of OA to research literature based on those data. (1) On September 8, 2004, The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued a public statement calling for an open-access registry and database of drug trial data. The statement also announced that ICMJE member journals would not publish research articles based on unregistered drug trials. Among the participating journals are the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The statement was published in all the ICMJE member journals. Here for example are the published versions from the New England Journal of Medicine, Jama, and ICMJE itself. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe048225 <http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe048225> http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/11/1363 <http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/11/1363> http://www.icmje.org/clin_trial.pdf <http://www.icmje.org/clin_trial.pdf> Drug trial data are different from peer-reviewed research articles. The overriding need for sharing drug trial data is to correct an imbalance, so that negative results are as readily available as positive results. However, this could be done in toll-access database. The fact that the journal editors are demanding that the database be open-access means that removing access barriers is as important to them as correcting an imbalance. Why? The ICMJE editors don't explain. But the reason seems to be the same one that has driven the OA movement all these years: OA serves the public interest by accelerating research and all the benefits that depend on research advances. Moreover, to secure these benefits, the ICMJE editors did essentially the same thing that the NIH is proposing to do: they put an OA condition on their participation. The ICMJE editors are saying that if scientists want ICMJE journals to publish their articles on drug trial data, then the underlying drug trials must provide OA to their data. The NIH is saying that if scientists want an NIH research grant, then they must provide OA to any resulting articles through deposit in PMC. These similarities sharpen the unspoken background question. Why don't the ICMJE journals themselves do more to permit or require OA to research articles, including their own articles? (As an Elsevier journal, The Lancet permits its authors to deposit published articles in OA repositories.) Here are some news stories on the editors' public statement. Drummond Rennie, Trial Registration: A Great Idea Switches From Ignored to Irresistible, JAMA, September 15, 2004. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/11/1359 <http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/11/1359> Laurie Barclay, Call for Mandatory Clinical Trial Registration, Open Access to Results, Medscape, September 14, 2004. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/489219 <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/489219> Q&A Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen [editor-in-chief of NEJM] on drug trial results, Boston Globe, September 12, 2004 http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/09/12/qa_dr_jeffrey_m_drazen_on _drug_trial_results/ <http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/09/12/qa_dr_jeffrey_m_drazen_o n_drug_trial_results/> Alicia Ault, House berates FDA, drug makers; US Congressional subcommittee holds hearing on clinical trial disclosure rules, The Scientist, September 10, 2004. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040910/04/ <http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040910/04/> Medical journals to tight up rules and regulations, Pravda, September 10, 2004 http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/09/10/56027.html <http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/09/10/56027.html> Clinical drug trials 'distorted', BBC News, September 9, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3640488.stm <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3640488.stm> Philip Cohen, Medical journals to require clinical trial registration, New Scientist, September 9, 2004. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996378 <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996378> Andre Picard, Medical journals get tough on drug companies, Globe and Mail, September 9, 2004. http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2C713C59 <http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2C713C59> Daniel Engber, Top Medical Journals Make Disclosure of Clinical-Trial Results a Condition of Publication, Chronicle of Higher Education, September 9, 2004. http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/09/2004090901n.htm <http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/09/2004090901n.htm> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109474263 484622264 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947426 3484622264> Maggie Fox, Show us All Your Data, Medical Journals Demand, Reuters, September 8, 2004. http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews <http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=6183894& section=news> &storyID=6183894&section=news Laura Gilcrest, New bill targets drug data disclosure, CBS MarketWatch, September 8, 2004. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B80E3167D-8965-4AC9-9FE4-1E A8D7B05EF2%7D <http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B80E3167D-8965-4AC9-9FE4-1 EA8D7B05EF2%7D&siteid=google&dist=google> &siteid=google&dist=google Amanda Gardner, Medical Journals Tighten Rules on Clinical Trials, Health Central, September 8, 2004. http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=521110 <http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=521110> Here are some recent articles and news stories on the general topic of OA to drug trial data, but *not* focusing on the ICMJE statement. Cheryll Barron, Big Pharma snared by net, The Guardian, September 26, 2004. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1312765,00.html <http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1312765,00.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109637270 668992177 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963727 0668992177> Jennifer Couzin, Legislators Propose a Registry to Track Clinical Trials >From Start to Finish, Science, September 17, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5691/1695 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5691/1695> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109581141 059058415 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958114 1059058415> Merrill Goozner, Registering Clinical Trials Doesn't Go Far Enough, GoozNews, September 12, 2004. http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000074.html <http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000074.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109517580 963670698 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951758 0963670698> Toshi A Furukawa, All clinical trials must be reported in detail and made publicly available, BMJ, September 11, 2004. A letter to the editor. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/626-a <http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/626-a> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109479707 070562971 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947970 7070562971> Editorial: Full disclosure on drug research, Toronto Star, September 10, 2004. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic le_Type1 <http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Arti cle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1094767833697&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116 795> &c=Article&cid=1094767833697&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795 Jennifer Couzin, Momentum Builds for Clinical Trial Registration, ScienceNOW, September 10, 2004. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2004/910/1?etoc <http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2004/910/1?etoc> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109508274 006310446 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950827 4006310446> Anon., Change for Clinical Trials on the way, Ivanhoe's Medical Breakthroughs, September 10, 2004. http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=9476 <http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=9476> NIH Proposes Making Clinical Trial Data Free to Public, Medical News Today, September 7, 2004. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13022 <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13022> John George, Glaxo begins Web data system, Philadelphia Business Journal, September 2, 2004. http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2004/08/30/daily20. html?jst=b_ln_hl <http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2004/08/30/daily20 .html?jst=b_ln_hl> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a109414519 415309763 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10941451 9415309763> (2) A panel of the National Research Council has concluded that the benefits of open access to genome data on pathogens outweigh the risk of misuse by terrorists. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109477637 817525459 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947763 7817525459> One way to frame the question is whether open access is always more useful than toll access, or whether it's only more useful for innocuous information that can't be put to harmful uses. The question is important because human cleverness can put just about any information to destructive uses, and human viciousness all too often tries to do so. For the NRC panel, the question was focused on genomic data on pathogens. After a thorough examination, the panel concluded that the benefits of OA outweigh the risks even when the risks are starkly acknowledged. It would be a mistake to assume that this decision minimized the real risks. Instead, it's a thorough and informed appreciation of both the risks and the benefits, and therefore one of the strongest statements of the benefits of OA to date. Here are some articles and news stories on the panel's report. Emily Singer, Scientists stumped by dual push for open access, secrecy, News@Nature, September 28, 2004. http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040927/full/nm1004-1006a.html <http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040927/full/nm1004-1006a.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109646496 929619231 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10964649 6929619231> Keep genome data freely accessible, The Lancet, September 25, 2004. An unsigned editorial endorsing the panel's conclusions. http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9440/full/llan.364.9440.analysis_ and_interpretation.30832.1 <http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9440/full/llan.364.9440.analysis _and_interpretation.30832.1> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109603148 089702786 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10960314 8089702786> David Malakoff, Report Upholds Public Access to Genetic Codes, Science Magazine, September 17, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5691/1692a <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5691/1692a> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109543155 014587325 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10954315 5014587325> R. Pielke, Jr., Public Access to Genome Data and the NAS as Policy Advocate, Prometheus: Health, September 12, 2004. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/index.html#0001 99 <http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/index.html#000 199> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109519188 576299875 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951918 8576299875> U.S. State Department, U.S. Report Supports Unrestricted Access to Pathogen Genomes, September 10, 2004. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english <http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m= September&x=20040910120820lcnirellep0.1109583&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html> &y=2004&m=September&x=20040910120820lcnirellep0.1109583&t=livefeeds/wf-lates t.html Kate Ruder, Information on Pathogens Should Flow Freely, Report Says, Genome News Network, September 10, 2004. http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/09/10/genomeinfo.php <http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/09/10/genomeinfo.php> Eugene Russo, NRC wants genome data unfetteredNothing to be gained from restricting access to bioterror agent genomes, says report, The Scientist, September 10, 2004. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040910/01/ <http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040910/01/> Study: Germ data should be shared, Associated Press, September 10, 2004. http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/studygerm10.htm <http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/studygerm10.htm> Maggie Fox, Hiding Genome Data Won't Protect Us, Experts Say, Reuters, Sept. 9. 2004. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews <http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=6196728> &storyID=6196728 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109482917 818953981 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948291 7818953981> U.S. Urged to Keep Gene Data on Pathogens Open, HealthDay, September 9, 2004. http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=521128 <http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=521128> Randolph Schmid, Panel urges sharing of data on germs, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 9, 2004. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110 <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Bi oterrorism%20Openness> &slug=Bioterrorism%20Openness * WIPO asked to consider two OA-friendly proposals. At its current session (September 27 - October 5, 2004), WIPO will take up two proposals that could greatly improve the flow of information. It may deliberate on them before I mail this issue; but if so, I probably won't have time to digest the developments until later. (1) Proposal by Argentina and Brazil for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/wo_ga_31_11.p df <http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/wo_ga_31_11. pdf> Quoting from p. 3: While access to information and knowledge sharing are regarded as essential elements in fostering innovation and creativity in the information economy, adding new layers of intellectual property protection to the digital environment would obstruct the free flow of information and scuttle efforts to set up new arrangements for promoting innovation and creativity, through initiatives such as the 'Creative Commons'. The ongoing controversy surrounding the use of technological protection measures in the digital environment is also of great concern. The provisions of any treaties in this field must be balanced and clearly take on board the interests of consumers and the public at large. It is important to safeguard the exceptions and limitations existing in the domestic laws of Member States. In order to tap into the development potential offered by the digital environment, it is important to bear in mind the relevance of open access models for the promotion of innovation and creativity. In this regard, WIPO should consider undertaking activities with a view to exploring the promise held by open collaborative projects to develop public goods, as exemplified by the Human Genome Project and Open Source Software. (2) Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization (debated at athe WIPO meeting on September 30) http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipodeclaration.pdf <http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipodeclaration.pdf> https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1069.html <https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1069.html> Humanity faces a global crisis in the governance of knowledge, technology and culture. The crisis is manifest in many ways....Morally repugnant inequality of access to education, knowledge and technology undermines development and social cohesion; Anticompetitive practices in the knowledge economy impose enormous costs on consumers and retard innovation; Private interests misappropriate social and public goods, and lock up the public domain. At the same time, there are astoundingly promising innovations in information, medical and other essential technologies, as well as in social movements and business models. We are witnessing highly successful campaigns for access to drugs for AIDS, scientific journals, genomic information and other databases, and hundreds of innovative collaborative efforts to create public goods, including the Internet, the World Wide Web...the Creative Commons, GNU Linux and other free and open software....As an intergovernmental organization, however, WIPO embraced a culture of creating and expanding monopoly privileges, often without regard to consequences. The continuous expansion of these privileges and their enforcement mechanisms has led to grave social and economic costs, and has hampered and threatened other important systems of creativity and innovation....The mantras that "more [copyright protection] is better" or "that less is never good" are disingenuous and dangerous -- and have greatly compromised the standing of WIPO, especially among experts in intellectual property policy. WIPO must change....There must be a moratorium on new treaties and harmonization of standards that expand and strengthen monopolies and further restrict access to knowledge.... To sign the Geneva Declaration, send an email to <geneva_declaration(a)cptech.org>. List of existing signatures on the Geneva Declaration http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/signatures.html <http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/signatures.html> Four major U.S. library associations, the AALL, ALA, ARL, and SLA --all friends of open access-- released an open letter endordsing the Geneva Declaration on September 17, 2004. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/WIPODeclaratio092704.pdf <http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/WIPODeclaratio092704.pdf> For more information on the two WIPO proposals, see the Consumer Project on Technology web page on WIPO http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/ <http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/> ...and the CPTech page on the Geneva Declaration http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html <http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html> ...and the agenda for the WIPO General Assembly, 31st Session, September 27 - October 5, 2004 http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=6309 <http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=6309> Here are a few articles and news stories on the proposals. Anon., Call to 'unblinker' WIPO, P2P.net, September 30, 2004. http://p2pnet.net/story/2589 <http://p2pnet.net/story/2589> Anon., Activists challenge UN intellectual property pact, Stuff.co.nz, September 20, 2004. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3050100a6026,00.html <http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3050100a6026,00.html> Frances Williams, Development needs 'override intellectual property protection', Financial Times, September 30, 2004. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/87d93e54-127e-11d9-863e-00000e2511c8.htmli <http://news.ft.com/cms/s/87d93e54-127e-11d9-863e-00000e2511c8.htmli> Anon., UN to Relax Protection for Intellectual Property to Help Developing Countries, Associated Press, September 29, 2004. http://english.daralhayat.com/business/09-2004/Article-20040929-4b0e450b-c0a 8-01ed-002c-03ff9bccd5b7/story.html <http://english.daralhayat.com/business/09-2004/Article-20040929-4b0e450b-c0 a8-01ed-002c-03ff9bccd5b7/story.html> The IFLA position on the Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO, September 29, 2004 http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/CLM-GenevaDeclaration2004.html <http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/CLM-GenevaDeclaration2004.html> James Boyle, A Manifesto On Wipo And The Future Of Intellectual Property, Duke Law & Technology Review, September 8, 2004. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0009.html <http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0009.html> * Governments spend on OA infrastructure. Several developments in September suggest that governments are willing to spend public funds on OA infrastructure. The NIH OA plan belongs in this category, but here are some others. This is a remarkably long list when you consider that it's limited to initiatives announced in the past month. The Australian federal government is funding a major upgrade and expansion of the Australian Digital Theses Program. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10837338%255E1 2332,00.html <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10837338%5E12 332,00.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109611977 240519442 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10961197 7240519442> The UK government, through JISC, will fund infrastructure for OA to UK theses and dissertations, and is now soliciting proposals for the job. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=funding_etheses <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=funding_etheses> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109579965 528849327 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957996 5528849327> The UK government, also through JISC, agreed to renew the BioMed Central institutional memberships that it first bought for all UK universities in July 2003. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=biomed_pr_210904 <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=biomed_pr_210904> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109568557 236698547 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10956855 7236698547> The publicly-funded BBC continued to take steps toward providing an open access to its broadcasting archive. http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1308105,00.html <http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1308105,00.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109576806 695437096 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957680 6695437096> The Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access. http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html <http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109577460 536497402 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957746 0536497402> Martin Feijen and Annemiek van der Kuil published a helpful overview of Holland's DARE project. http://www.surf.nl/en/publicaties/index2.php?hb=1 <http://www.surf.nl/en/publicaties/index2.php?hb=1&oid=29> &oid=29 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109516865 300692207 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951686 5300692207> Germany's largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia, signed the Berlin Declaration and launched the Digital Peer Publishing Initiative (DIPP). The DIPP will host eight OA journals and develop open-source software and open-access licenses for online scholarly publishing. http://www.mwf.nrw.de/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2004/pm_30_09_2004pdf.pdf <http://www.mwf.nrw.de/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2004/pm_30_09_2004pdf.pdf> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109663727 828841442 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10966372 7828841442> The Max Planck Gesellschaft and Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe, with more than six million Euros of German government funding, will develop eSciDoc, an open-source internet platform for open-access scientific communication, publication, and collaboration. http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/2 004/pressemitteilung200409061/ <http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/ 2004/pressemitteilung200409061/> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109457805 736672920 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945780 5736672920> Also see Bobby Pickering, German Government funds OA initiative, Information World Review, October 1, 2004. http://www.iwr.co.uk/IWR/1158510 <http://www.iwr.co.uk/IWR/1158510> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109665131 980748277 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10966513 1980748277> China has authorized the locally-hosted broadband connection to provide Chinese access to Highwire journals. http://highwire.stanford.edu/inthepress/stories/CERNET.dtl <http://highwire.stanford.edu/inthepress/stories/CERNET.dtl> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109516754 878011871 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951675 4878011871> China has also invested an undisclosed amount in some of nation's scientific journals in an effort to improve their stature and reach. This does not seem to include OA, though it could and should. http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews <http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1610&langua ge=1> &itemid=1610&language=1 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109594461 968108943 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959446 1968108943> Taiwan's Academica Sinica helped launch a Taiwanese version Creative Commons, making Taiwan the 23rd country with a national version of CC. http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2004/09/05/1094357843.htm <http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2004/09/05/1094357843.htm> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109438918 732880475 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10943891 8732880475> The Canadian version of Creative Commons launched on September 30. http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/technology/story.html?id=1f8f73fd -3035-4ed0-9f2e-d7a147796f70 <http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/technology/story.html?id=1f8f73f d-3035-4ed0-9f2e-d7a147796f70> One of the U.S. Federal Reserve banks supports two open-access archives of national economic data. http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ <http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109596620 712194043 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959662 0712194043> The U.S. Office of Scientific and Technical Information now hosts an OA database of government contracts. http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb040913-2.shtml <http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb040913-2.shtml> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109508343 153246818 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950834 3153246818> The U.S. National Library of Medicine launched the NLM Catalog, a new searchable OA database of bibliographic data. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/news/catlaunch04.html <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/news/catlaunch04.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109525645 340916610 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10952564 5340916610> The U.S. Interagency Committee on Government Information is still collecting public comments on its plan to provide federated searching of OA government information distributed among the many databases maintained by the agencies and offices of the federal government. http://www.gcn.com/23_27/technology-policy/27241-1.html <http://www.gcn.com/23_27/technology-policy/27241-1.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109518599 028705758 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951859 9028705758> The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office now provides open access to most new patent applications. http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html <http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html> http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/sep/biobus3_040927.html <http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/sep/biobus3_040927.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109637656 399894634 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963765 6399894634> The U.S. ERIC resumed acquiring new OA content after its recent reorganization and on October 1 provided OA to 107,000 full-text non-journal documents that were previously TA only. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109629088 230713831 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962908 8230713831> The European Commission inquiry into STM publishing and OA continues to move along. http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=06 <http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=06> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109629022 097680840 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962902 2097680840> Here's a switch: a private OA infrastrucutre initiative to benefit governments. DigitalGlobe, which sells satellite imagery and geospatial information, gives some away to state and local governments in the U.S. http://media.digitalglobe.com/index.php?s=press_release_popup <http://media.digitalglobe.com/index.php?s=press_release_popup&ITEM=73> &ITEM=73 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109476143 276656519 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947614 3276656519> Two developments on the down side: copyright problems will block free online access to the publicly-funded British Library Archive and copyright reforms may harm research and education in Canada. http://www.newmediazero.com/nma/story.asp?id=249412 <http://www.newmediazero.com/nma/story.asp?id=249412> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a109435324 860832330 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943532 4860832330> http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/22/638560.html <http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/22/638560.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109594977 252712127 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959497 7252712127> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/22/edweb_040922.html <http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/22/edweb_040922.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109637839 704539256 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963783 9704539256> Here are a few *calls* for government spending on OA. Perhaps I can shortly report that the governments are heeding the calls. At the ESOF 2004 conference, Khotso Mokhele from South Africa called on the EU to invest in scientific infrastructure in developing countries. From the audience, an unnamed CORDIS official explained that 32 million Euros of the FP6 budget were earmarked for developing countries, of which only 17 million have so far been spent. The official continued: "We have recognised that infrastructure is the main issue in those countries and we will address this issue in FP7." Institutional repositories are very inexpensive and very effective and would take only a small portion of the remaining 17 million. http://dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?CALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS <http://dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?CALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION= &RCN=EN_RCN_ID:22542> &ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=EN_RCN_ID:22542 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109500025 371988244 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950002 5371988244> Here's more on how CORDIS is spending its research infrastructure funds. http://makeashorterlink.com/?R23632769 <http://makeashorterlink.com/?R23632769> In a September 23 article, D. Balasubramanian supported the OA work of Subbiah Arunachalam and called on the Indian government to adopt a plan, similar to the NIH OA plan, or the recommendations of the UK report, to mandate OA to government-funded research. http://www.hindu.com/seta/2004/09/23/stories/2004092300071600.htm <http://www.hindu.com/seta/2004/09/23/stories/2004092300071600.htm> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109589448 349631519 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958944 8349631519> Also see K. Satyanarayana's similar call on the Indian government published about a month earlier. http://www.icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2004/aug_Editorial2.pdf <http://www.icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2004/aug_Editorial2.pdf> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109484942 902437336 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948494 2902437336> Michael Geist called on the Canadian government to adopt a policy similar to the NIH plan in the U.S. http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1F145D69 <http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1F145D69> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109639241 480052594 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963924 1480052594> OpenTheGovernment issued a well-documented report on needless government secrecy in the U.S. and called for more OA to government information. http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/secrecy_reportcard.pdf <http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/secrecy_reportcard.pdf> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109551368 517294106 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10955136 8517294106> Finally, as long as I'm covering OA infrastructure investments in September, let me add these *privately funded* initiatives. BioMed Central launched its Institutional Repository service, which will install, populate, and maintain OA repositories (using DSpace) for institutions that wish to outsource these jobs. http://www.openrepository.com/ <http://www.openrepository.com/> http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/pr-releases?pr=20040913 <http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/pr-releases?pr=20040913> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109508226 346197292 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950822 6346197292> Harvard and MIT released version 1.0 of the Virtual Data Center, an open-source system for data archiving. VDC has long been available in beta. http://thedata.org/index.php/Main/HomePage <http://thedata.org/index.php/Main/HomePage> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109647741 908557937 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10964774 1908557937> NYU and partner institutions will develop the Archivists' Toolkit, an open-source, OAI-compliant program for physical and digital archives. The project has funding from the Mellon Foundation. http://euterpe.bobst.nyu.edu/toolkit/ <http://euterpe.bobst.nyu.edu/toolkit/> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a109603392 024520142 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10960339 2024520142> Cornell University will soon release DPubS, an open-source system for electronic scholarly publication. http://dpubs.org/ <http://dpubs.org/> http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v51/i06/06a03501.htm <http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v51/i06/06a03501.htm> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109629557 007737805 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962955 7007737805> The Max Planck Gesellschaft and Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe are teaming up to develop eSciDoc, an open-source internet platform for open-access scientific communication, publication, and collaboration. It has both public and private funding. http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/2 004/pressemitteilung200409061/ <http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/ 2004/pressemitteilung200409061/> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109457805 736672920 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945780 5736672920> The Open Society Institute released the third edition of Raym Crow's Guide to Institutional Repository Software, which now covers nine open-source systems for creating open-access, OAI-compliant repositories. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/software/ <http://www.soros.org/openaccess/software/> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a109509255 901125498 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950925 5901125498> * The Nature Publishing Group experiments with many kinds of wider access. Watch the Nature Publishing Group (NPG). It is vigorously exploring several different ways to widen access. Here are those that broke into the news in the past month alone. The NPG and the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) are launching an open-access journal, Molecular Systems Biology (no web site yet). First issue should appear this month (October 2004). http://www.macmillan.com/07092004emboandnpg.asp <http://www.macmillan.com/07092004emboandnpg.asp> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109465960 874536422 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946596 0874536422> NPG has launched news@nature, a science news service with free online content. There is also a priced, premium edition. http://www.nature.com/news/ <http://www.nature.com/news/> http://www.macmillan.com/12072004PressReleaseNPG.asp <http://www.macmillan.com/12072004PressReleaseNPG.asp> Nature Insight is offering six months of free online access to a collection of articles on RNA interference, subsidized by Merck & Co. and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. http://www.nature.com/nature/insights/7006.html <http://www.nature.com/nature/insights/7006.html> Nature Reviews is offering six months of free online access to a collection of articles on proteomics, subsidized by Sigma-Aldrich. http://www.nature.com/reviews/focus/proteomics/ <http://www.nature.com/reviews/focus/proteomics/> Nature Reviews Drug Discovery and Nature Reviews Genetics are offering two months of free online access to a collection of articles on pharmacogenetics. http://www.nature.com/reviews/focus/pgx/ <http://www.nature.com/reviews/focus/pgx/> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109466757 653694363 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946675 7653694363> NPG launched _Nature Methods_ October 1. It's not OA, but NPG is offering free subscriptions to "qualifying researchers" --without explaining who qualifies. http://www.nature.com/nmeth/ <http://www.nature.com/nmeth/> http://www.nature.com/nmeth/press_release/nmeth1004.html <http://www.nature.com/nmeth/press_release/nmeth1004.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a109667909 283789122 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10966790 9283789122> "Experiments in publishing", a Nature editorial on open access (accessible only to subscribers). http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7005/f ull/431111a_fs.html <http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7005/ full/431111a_fs.html> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a109467460 702473562 <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946746 0702473562> ---------- Coming up later this month Here are some important OA-related events coming up in October * October 1, 2004. Quoting the ERIC web site: "Effective October 1, more than 107,000 full-text non-journal documents (issued 1993-2004), previously available through fee-based services only, will be available [at ERIC] for free." http://www.eric.ed.gov/ <http://www.eric.ed.gov/> * October 11, 2004. The Royal Society of Edinburgh meets to finalize, sign, and most likely release the Scottish Declaration of Open Access. http://widwisawn.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/issues/vol2/issue2_3_3.html#news <http://widwisawn.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/issues/vol2/issue2_3_3.html#news> http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SSISWGOA/declaration.htm <http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SSISWGOA/declaration.htm> * October 19, 2004. The Public LIbrary of Science will launch its second open-access journal, _PLoS Medicine_. http://www.plosmedicine.org/medicine/ <http://www.plosmedicine.org/medicine/> * Sometime this month. The UK government should issue its response to the open-access recommendations made by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in its July 20 report. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/3990 2.htm <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399 02.htm> * Notable conferences this month --an unusually large number for one month Access to health information in developing countries: the role of information and communication technology http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent <http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent&event_id=2982&calen dar_id=4> &event_id=2982&calendar_id=4 London, September 30 - October 1, 2004 Symposium on Open Access and Digital Preservation http://www.metascholar.org/OADP-Symposium.html <http://www.metascholar.org/OADP-Symposium.html> Atlanta, October 2, 2004 Access to health information: The role of systematic reviews. Cochrane Colloquium http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent <http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent&event_id=2983&calen dar_id=4> &event_id=2983&calendar_id=4 Ottawa, October 2-6, 2004 Strategic online publishers workshop (sponsored by INASP) http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent <http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent&event_id=3883&calen dar_id=4> &event_id=3883&calendar_id=4 Nairobi, October 3-6, 2004 STM Publishing - at the Crossroads? Challenges and Responses (open access is among the topics) http://www.stm-assoc.org/newsflash/gaprogram.php <http://www.stm-assoc.org/newsflash/gaprogram.php> Frankfurt, October 4-5, 2004 Institutional Repositories: Is There Anything Left to Say? (a public lecture at OCLC by Paul Conway) http://www.oclc.org/research/dss/conway.htm <http://www.oclc.org/research/dss/conway.htm> Dublin, Ohio, October 7, 2004 10 Years of Connectivity: Libraries, the World Wide Web, and the Next Decade (sponsored by LITA/ALA) http://makeashorterlink.com/?H55F23C76 <http://makeashorterlink.com/?H55F23C76> St. Louis, October 7-10, 2004 Building the Digital Library: The Role of Digital Libraries http://lectnotes.itc.gu.edu.au:8888/htdocs/alia/bdl.pdf <http://lectnotes.itc.gu.edu.au:8888/htdocs/alia/bdl.pdf> Brisbane, October 8, 2004 Internet Librarian International 2004: Access, Architecture & Action: Strategies for the New Digital World; includes a session, Open Access Forum for Internet Librarians (Session B104), on Monday, October 11, 15:00 - 17:00. http://www.internet-librarian.com/index.shtml <http://www.internet-librarian.com/index.shtml> London, October 10-12, 2004 Future Trends in Science Editing and Publishing: Bringing Science to Society (Twelfth International Conference of Science Editors) http://www.ifsemex.org/ <http://www.ifsemex.org/> Merida, Mexico, October 10-14, 2004 Meeting to sign and launch the Scottish Declaration of Open Access (not the official meeting title) (by invitation only) http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SSISWGOA/OAevents.htm <http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SSISWGOA/OAevents.htm> Edinburgh, October 11, 2004 Access 2004, Beyond Buzzwords; includes the preconference, Institutional Repositories: The Future is Now! on October 13, 9am to 5pm http://library.acadiau.ca/access2004/index.html <http://library.acadiau.ca/access2004/index.html> http://library.acadiau.ca/access2004/preconference.html <http://library.acadiau.ca/access2004/preconference.html> Halifax, October 13-16, 2004 Symposium on Open Access to Knowledge and Scholarly Communication http://www.oai.unizh.ch/ <http://www.oai.unizh.ch/> Zurich, October 15, 2004 E-Research and Supporting Cyberinfrastructure: A Forum to Consider the Implications for Research Libraries and Research Institutions (sponsored by ARL and CNI) http://www.arl.org/forum04/ <http://www.arl.org/forum04/> Washington, D.C., October 15, 2004 Digital Preservation in Institutional Repositories (sponsored by the Digital Preservation Coalition) http://www.dpconline.org/graphics/events/041019forum.html <http://www.dpconline.org/graphics/events/041019forum.html> London, October 19, 2004 Social Science Data Archives: creating, depositing and using data http://www.esds.ac.uk/news/plymouth.asp <http://www.esds.ac.uk/news/plymouth.asp> Plymouth, October 22, 2004 Are Chemical Journals Too Expensive and Inaccessible? (sponsored by the Chemical Sciences Roundtable) http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bcst/Agenda_Pub.pdf <http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bcst/Agenda_Pub.pdf> Washington, D.C., October 25-26, 2004 * Other OA-related conferences http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm> ---------- Housekeeping * I've added 16 new conferences to the conference page since the last issue. In the next few days I'll delete the second asterisk marking them and the new entries will blend into the rest of the collection. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm> * Atomz.com tells me that, starting on September 30, it will insert ads on the return pages for the search engine that I use for my blog and newsletter. I've run searches since then and don't see the ads, but I expect they'll show up soon. The ads will be pure text and based on the user's search string. This is a decision by Atomz and beyond my control unless I drop Atomz or decide to pay for its premium service. At least for the time being, I plan to continue with the free service. * Bloglet is down again. Bloglet is the service that provides email delivery of blog postings from Open Access News (OAN) and other blogs. OAN itself is working fine. If you count on Bloglet for email delivery of OAN postings, then my advice may seem harsh. Please stop counting on it. Bloglet is very unreliable and beyond my control. It's often down without explanation. When it's up, it often sends out corrupted emails that garble the text. When it's working as advertised, it still deletes the titles, bylines, and direct links to individual blog postings. I strongly recommend that you either read OAN on the web or read its RSS feed through a news aggregator. Meantime I'll continue to look for a reliable blog-to-email service and welcome your suggestions. Open Access News, on the web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html> If you're tempted to read the blog's RSS feed, see next. * I've changed the URL for the blog's RSS feed. At the same time I've added an Atom feed. In both cases, it was to take advantage of new syndication technologies. If you subscribed to the old RSS feed, it's time to upgrade. My apologies for the inconvenience. New Atom feed for Open Access News http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/atom.xml <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/atom.xml> New RSS feed for Open Access News http://feeds.feedburner.com/earlham/dGCQ <http://feeds.feedburner.com/earlham/dGCQ> ========== This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written by Peter Suber and published by SPARC. The views I express in this newsletter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC. To unsubscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OANews-off(a)arl.org>. Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the first two sites below. SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html <http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html> Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter editorial position http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm> Newsletter, archived back issues http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm> Forum, archived postings https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html <https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html> Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm> Timeline of the Open Access Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm> Open Access Overview http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm> Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html> Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters> peter.suber(a)earlham.edu SOAN is an open-access publication under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Users may freely copy, distribute, and display its contents, but must give credit to the author. To read the full license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/> Dear Friends: The NIH, the world's leading funding agency, is receiving comments on its published plan for mandating all NIH-funded research to be made available through open access [by authors archiving the full text of their research papers in PubMed Central] up to 16 November 2004 . Many leading US institutions have already supported the NIH plan. These include the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association of Universities and the US Chamber of Commerce. Twenty-five Nobel Laureates have also supported the initiative. As the NIH plan of making available all research papers resulting from NIH funding freely accessible will benefit scientists and scholars in India (and elsewhere) immensely, we should also express our support to NIH. I urge all scientists and librarians in India and other developing counties to send a letter to NIH supporting the initiative. For the same reason, I urge the InterAcademy Council, the InterAcademy Panel and TWAS and the science academies of all developing countries to send letters to NIH supporting their plan. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] -----Original Message----- From: Peter Suber [mailto:peters@earlham.edu] Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 5:45 PM To: SPARC Open Access Newsletter Subject: [SOAN] SPARC Open Access Newsletter, 10/2/04 Welcome to the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #78 October 2, 2004 Read this issue online http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-02-04.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-02-04.htm A busy month of action on the NIH open-access plan A lot has happened with the NIH open-access plan since the last issue of the newsletter. Here are the major developments in chronological order. I comment on their significance afterwards. (1) On September 3, the NIH released its own draft policy of the plan for a 60 day period of public comment. (Until September 3, all we had was a July 14 directive from the House Appropriations Committee for the NIH to produce a plan.) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html (2) Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) and Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) engaged in a "colloquy" about the House Appropriations Committee report language proposing the NIH open-access plan (Congressional Record, September 8, p. H6833). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H6833… http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H6833… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947481… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947481… (3) On September 9, the House of Representatives adopted the NIH recommendation in the House appropriations report by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 388-13. The recommendation then moved to the Senate. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947790… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947790… (4) Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman of the House Appropriations Labor-HHS Subcommittee (the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the NIH) decided not to include any language on the NIH plan in the Senate subcommittee report. (5) On September 17, the NIH plan was published in the Federal Register, for another 60 day period of public comment ending on November 16. This is the same text published in the NIH Guide on September 3 for a 60 day public comment period ending on November 2. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.go… http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.go… (6) On September 24, the NIH announced that the comment periods from the two postings of its plan (September 3 in the NIH Guide and September 17 in the Federal Register) had been merged. Now all comments are due on November 16, 2004 (60 days from the Federal Register publication). http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-070.html http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-070.html (7) Supporters have continued to sign on. Among the most notable are the American Association of Universities , the National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Together with the open letter from 25 American Nobel laureates in science, the AAU and NAS endorsements solidify the support from the American research community. The Alliance for Taxpayer Access embodies a large number of important endorsements in its rapidly growing membership list. ATA members now include an impressive range of patient and disease advocacy organizations, universities, laboratories, and libraries. The AAU endorsement of the NIH plan, September 27, 2004 http://www.aau.edu/issues/NIHPubAccProp.pdf http://www.aau.edu/issues/NIHPubAccProp.pdf http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963860… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963860… The NAS endorsement, September 16, 2004 http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s09162004?OpenDocument http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s09162004?OpenDocument http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10953807… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10953807… The Chamber of Commerce endorsement, September 9, 2004 http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2004/september/04-121.htm http://www.uschamber.com/press/releases/2004/september/04-121.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948511… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948511… Alliance for Taxpayer Access membership list http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/member.html http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/member.html An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine endorsed the key elements of the plan: the open access and the six month embargo. In fact, it went further and endorsed OA for "all research articles, not just those funded by the NIH". NEJM qualified its support, however, by suggesting that the journals publishing these OA-archived articles should hold the copyrights. It argued that journals need copyrights in order to block the redistribution of mangled copies of the text, for example, one-sided extracts showing the advantages of a new drug without its disadvantages. (PS: I'm confident that the NIH funding contract will not take this right away from authors. Hence, it will be up to authors and journals whether authors will transfer this right to journals, just as it is today.) http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/351/13/1343 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/351/13/1343 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959555… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959555… Even Elsevier, which doesn't support the plan overall, gave it a kind of backhanded endorsement. Bradie Metheny wrote in the September 8 issue of Washington Fax (accessible only to subscribers): "John Regazzi, managing director of marketing development for Elsevier, the world's largest publisher of journals, said no one can argue against giving the public access to NIH information; it is in the public interest. 'But how you do it is the key,' he said. '[The NIH proposal] is moving too fast,' Regazzi argued." (PS: I'd love to see other publishers start from the same premise that open access to this literature is in the public interest. We could then focus the debate on whether it is or isn't outweighed by other considerations. But on the whole other publishers are unwilling to make this obvious concession.) http://www.washingtonfax.com/p1/2004/20040908.html http://www.washingtonfax.com/p1/2004/20040908.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946703… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946703… Here are few new questions and answers about the current state of play. * Why are there two or even three plans? The House Appropriations Committee language of July 14 makes some policy recommendations and directs the NIH to come up with its own plan by December 1 to implement them. The NIH issued a draft of its plan on September 3, for a 60 day period of public comment ending on November 2. The September 3 text was also published in the Federal Register on September 17, for another 60 public comment period ending on November 16. The NIH has since merged the two comment periods, with a single deadline of November 16. The new deadline will give the agency about two weeks after the comment period expires to digest the comments and finalize the plan language before the December 1 deadline. For the purpose of anticipating what the final plan will or will not provide, consult the NIH's text (the September 3 and September 17 versions are identical), and eventually consult the revised version of the text that emerges from the public comment period. * What does it mean that the NIH issued its plan so quickly? It's not so quick when you realize that it needs to collect and digest public comments before producing a final plan by December 1. However, it was able to produce the draft plan to fit this timetable because it had already been thinking about the issues for a long time. For example, it presented a report to Congress on OA issues in May 2004, and had already gathered a wide range of views in three stakeholder meetings in July and August. The time had come to open the process to public comment. The prompt release of the plan means that the NIH already supports open access based on its prior deliberations. Congress is not compelling NIH to act against its better judgment. Despite the prescriptive language in the House appropriations report, this is less a Congressional mandate than a convergence of views. Access to Biomedical Research Information (the NIH report to Congress, May 2004) http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/docs/NIH_access_report.pdf http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/docs/NIH_access_report.pdf * What are differences between the July House report and the September NIH plan? (1) The September plan drops the provision in the July report requiring immediate OA if the NIH paid any part of the article's publication costs. The new plan simply says that the OA edition will appear six months after publication "or sooner if the publisher agrees". Comment: The public interest would be better served by immediate OA than a six month embargo, but I can accept the embargo as a political necessity to get the plan adopted. The new change gives publishers even more than the original House version, guaranteeing that the embargo will never be shorter than six months without their consent. If this concession does not reduce publisher opposition, then it was not worth making and should be revoked. (2) The September plan gives new detail on exactly what grantees must deposit in PMC: "electronic copies of all final version manuscripts" accepted at peer-reviewed journals, when "final manuscript" is defined as "the author's version resulting after all modifications due to the peer review process." But then the September plan adds a new provision: "If the publisher requests, the author's final version of the publication will be replaced in the PMC archive by the final publisher's copy with an appropriate link to the publisher's electronic database." Comment: This is welcome detail. Giving publishers the option to replace the unofficial author version with the official journal version is a very good idea. Because they needn't exercise the option, publishers can't complain. Because exercising it would improve the archived OA literature, it can only help. In its endorsement of the plan, the National Academy of Sciences strongly urged publishers to take advantage of this option. (3) The September plan gives new detail on what kind of NIH funding triggers the OA plan. The plan applies to NIH "grantees and supported Principal Investigators" and covers "all research grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, as well as National Research Service Award (NRSA) fellowships." The OA policy will apply to all articles whose underlying research "was supported in whole or in part by NIH funding." Comment: This is welcome detail. The House report fudged the "all or part" question, and the NIH has clarified it in the right decision. (4) The September plan drops the condition in the July report that the policy will only apply to articles accepted by a "scientific journal listed in the NLM's PubMed directory". Comment: This is two-sided. On the one hand, it closes a worrisome loophole. Now the plan will cover NIH-funded research published in any peer-reviewed journal, not just the portion published in certain journals. On the other hand, it opens the door to criticism that the quality of PMC will be diluted by poor publications. Since this criticism is easily answered, NIH made the right call. How do we answer this criticism? All articles covered by this plan will be based on research proposals that made it through the tough NIH vetting process prior to funding; taxpayers should have open access to all articles based on NIH-funded research anyway, regardless of their quality; and even the inclusion of occasional weak articles in PMC does nothing to detract from the strong ones. (5) The House report language wanted the NIH to develop a policy "requiring" deposit in PMC, but the NIH plan will merely "request" that grantees deposit their articles in PMC. Comment: It's not clear whether this word-change is significant. For example, two members of the House committee that wrote the requirement-language said in public, for the record, on the House floor, that the NIH draft is "consistent" with their own language. (See the Istook-Regula colloquy, below.) If they intended a hard and fast requirement and saw the NIH propose an optional request, then they wouldn't have given this endorsement. Moreover, the NIH will enforce its "request", which gives it at least some of the flavor of a requirement. The NIH will monitor grantee compliance and use non-compliance as a factor when deciding whether to award subsequent or follow-up funds. Since serious researchers don't expect to do just one fundable project, they won't risk future funding by disregarding the NIH OA condition (even if they oppose OA, which is unlikely). For the same reason, publishers who encourage authors to disregard the OA policy, on the ground that it is a mere request, would be harming those authors by exposing them to NIH sanctions. For both reasons --legislative intent and operation in practice-- it seems that there's no bright line between requests and requirements here. If that's true, then the softening of the language may just be diplomatic cordiality. However, if the softening of the language is significant, and compliance is more optional than the sanction makes it appear, then it's a major concession to publishers and a major departure from the public interest in open access. If further developments make clear that this is the proper way to interpret the language, then publishers should drop their opposition. If they don't, then the concession was not worth making and should be revoked. I once drafted a model OA policy for funding agencies that included a requirement (or what I called a requirement), not just a request. My chosen enforcement mechanism was to have non-compliant grantees repay their grants. To this day, the only criticism I've received on the policy was directed to the enforcement mechanism. Several scientists pointed out that denying subsequent funds would suffice. If so, then the NIH's enforcement mechanism will also suffice, regardless whether we use request or requirement language. Model open-access policy for foundation research grants http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/foundations.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/foundations.htm (6) Finally, while the July report contained some background principles and goals of the House Appropriations Committee, the September plan articulates some goals and intentions of the NIH. I count at least these eight: (a) the goal to improve the health of Americans; (b) the goal "to share and support public access to the results and accomplishments of the activities that [the NIH] funds"; (c) the goal to improve access to scientific information for "other scientists, health care providers, students, teachers, and the many millions of Americans searching the web to obtain credible health-related information"; (d) the intention to "balance this need with the ability of journals and publishers to preserve their critical role in the peer review, editing and scientific quality control process"; (d) the intention to monitor the "economic and business implications" of the plan in order to avoid "compromising the quality of the information being provided"; (f) the intention to "maintain a dialogue with publishers, investigators, and representatives from scientific associations and the public to ensure the success of this initiative"; (g) the intention to monitor compliance with the new policy and to use compliance as one factor in evaluating subsequent applications for NIH funds; and (h) the intention to "consider options to ensure that grantees' budgets are not unduly affected by this policy", for example, by journals that impose "unreasonable or disproportionate charges" on grantees. * What was the "colloquy" on the floor of the House (September 8) and what does it mean? A colloquy is a scripted dialogue for entering additional language into the Congressional Record. It provides legislative history on a bill without amending the bill. The colloquy on September 8 was between Representatives Ernest Istook (R-OK) and Ralph Regula (R-OH), who are both members of the House subcommittee that originally proposed the NIH open-access plan. Here's roughly what their dialogue added to the legislative history: concern about rising journal prices; concern about diminishing public access to federally funded research; support for the principle of free online access to publicly-funded research; support for Elias Zerhouni in seeking comments from three stakeholder meetings; support for the NIH's speed in preparing and releasing its September 3 draft plan; and confirmation that the NIH's September 3 draft is consistent with the language in the House appropriations report. All of this is for the good. Text of the Istook-Regula colloquy on the House appropriations report, September 8, 2004 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H6833… http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H6833… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947481… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947481… * What does it mean that Sen. Arlen Specter has decided not to include a version of the House NIH recommendation in the Senate appropriations bill? The bad news is that no Senate version of the House language will be adopted. The good news is that no Senate version will be amended or defeated. (Sen. Specter is the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the subcommittee determining the budget appropriation for the NIH.) The fate of the House language will be worked out in a conference committee. This is what happens whenever the House and Senate appropriations bills differ. Because the Senate action, or non-action, is compatible with any resolution in the conference committee, and because Sen. Specter knows this perfectly well, we should infer nothing about his support or opposition to the House plan from this decision. He's keeping his options open and shifting the resolution of the question from a larger chamber to a smaller one. This step does not help supporters more than opponents or vice versa. If the Senate had included the House language and voted it up, that would have been best for us and worst for our opponents, since it would have settled the question in our favor and removed it from the conference committee. But if the Senate had included the language and then watered it down with amendments, or defeated it, that would have been worst for us and best for our opponents. Both outcomes are now closed, for both sides. The members of the conference committee are yet to be named. But at this stage the Senators most worth reaching with your views are Specter (R-PA), Harkin (D-IA), Stevens (R-AK), Byrd (D-WV), Frist (R-TN), and Daschle (D-SD). If you have a relationship with any of these Senators or their offices, or if you reside in one of their states, then your phone call, fax, or email would be a big help. Senator Specter first disclosed his decision on September 3, in an interview with Rick Weiss of the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64389-2004Sep5.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64389-2004Sep5.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944718… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944718… The AAAS is the only stakeholder group I've seen to make a public comment on Specter's decision. The association supports the Senate omission of the language but also supports the NIH procedure of gathering public opinion on its draft policy. One reason may be that the omitted House language would have required immediate OA in some circumstances and the draft NIH policy would not. (PS: Other publishers should see that the NIH text is much more favorable to them than the original House language and work for its support.) http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nih05s.htm http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nih05s.htm (Scroll down about half way.) Senate Appropriations Committee http://appropriations.senate.gov/index.htm http://appropriations.senate.gov/index.htm Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the NIH) http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/laborhhs.htm http://appropriations.senate.gov/subcommittees/laborhhs.htm * What does it mean that the NIH draft appeared on the "NIH Guide" page, and not originally in the Federal Register? The NIH plan is a proposed revision of in-house agency guidelines for awarding research grants. The NIH already has the authority to revise its own guidelines. It doesn't need new statutes or regulations to give it this authority. (The fact that the plan eventually appeared in the Federal Register as well doesn't change this fact.) Hence, if Congress does not act, then the NIH could act on its own. However, the NIH benefits from Congressional support, and Congressional opposition would certainly cause it to rethink its draft policy. The NIH Guide web page http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/ http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/ * What will the NIH plan cost? Critics of the NIH plan have projected absurdly high estimates of the plan's costs and then protested that the high costs would unduly diminish the NIH funds available for research grants. NIH officials repeatedly knocked down these high estimates in public meetings but in late September their estimates finally appeared in print. Quoting Janet Coleman in the Washington Fax for September 27, 2004 (online access limited to subscribers): "Preliminary estimates of the cost of offering all NIH-funded research studies on the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central digital library are around $2.5 million and not the $100 million some critics have suggested, NLM Director Donald Lindberg, MD, said. NLM National Center for Biotechnology Information Director David Lipman 'worked up a budget of actual estimated costs...multiplied by everything under the sun and came up with $2.5 million,' Lindberg told the NLM Board of Regents Sept. 21." http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963876… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963876… This puts the annual cost of the OA archiving at about 0.008 % of the NIH's annual budget. * What are the current priorities for what supporters should do to help the cause? Above all, send comments to the NIH about its draft policy during the 60 day public comment period. Comments will be accepted until November 16, 2004, and may be submitted by email or web form. Get your friends and colleagues to submit comments. Get your departments and institutions to submit comments. Submit comments by email PublicAccess(a)nih.gov Submit comments by web form http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm If you belong to a U.S.-based organization (university, department, laboratory, library, journal, publisher, patient or disease advocacy organization, etc.) then persuade your group to join the Alliance for Taxpayer Access. It costs nothing to join and gives the ATA clout when making the case for open access to taxpayer-funded research. http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/ http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/ If you are an individual, see the ATA recommendations for individual actions that could help the cause. Among the most effective options are sending a letter, fax, or email to your Senators expressing support for the NIH plan. http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/you.html http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/you.html Comments and letters from U.S. citizens and U.S.-based organizations will carry more weight with the NIH and the U.S. Senate than comments from others, but the process is not limited to Americans. * For other questions and answers on the NIH plan, see my FAQ, which I've enlarged several times during the past month. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm The NIH now has its own page on the evolving OA plan. http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/index.htm http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/index.htm For news stories on the NIH plan since the last issue of the newsletter, see the section on major stories, below. ---------- A glimpse of our history Here are some excerpts from a 1974 _Science_ article and two subsequent letters to the editor. I'll keep my own voice out until the end. Thanks to Christopher Kelty, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Rice University and co-founder of the open-access Connexions project, for unearthing these pieces and bringing them to my attention. * John Walsh, "Journals: Photocopying Is Not the Only Problem," _Science_, March 29, 1974, pp. 1274-1275, 1277. [...] Attention has been focused on the photocopying issue by a suit brought by the Baltimore publisher of scientific and medical journals, Williams & Wilkins, charging the National Library of Medicine and the library of the National Institutes of Health with copyright infringement via photocopying. The most recent round of court action favored the defendants, permitting them to continue photocopying. [...] Reduced to its essentials, the dispute over photocopying casts scientific publishers and research libraries as the major antagonists. The libraries want the right to continue to provide a single photocopy for a reader who requests it. The limit on material is generally accepted to be a single article from a journal. The publishers argue that the mass, mail-order photocopying by major research libraries deprives the journals of the revenue necessary to cover editorial and printing costs and, in the case of commercial publishers, return on investment. They contend that if things go on this way there will be no journals to copy. [...] Libraries, for their part, are experiencing severe strains on their general budgets from inflation and are beginning to rebel at soaring journal costs. Some libraries have cut purchases of scientific books and monographs in order to keep up periodical purchases. Others have conducted "use surveys" on technical periodicals and dropped the subscriptions on the least used. Even larger and more affluent research libraries --mostly university and large metropolitan libraries-- are finding ways to share the burden imposed by increasing costs and greater numbers of scientific journals (one thing this means is a bigger photocopying network). [...] [O]bservers say that a growing trend among both commercial and nonprofit publishers is toward obtaining an increasing portion of income from subscription rates levied on libraries. Alarm over these trends in journal publishing are expressed fairly freely by librarians and some academics. A recent public example was provided by a letter signed by 11 university chemists from six countries (the problem is international) published in the 10 December 1973 _Chemical and Engineering News_....Particular criticism was aimed at commercial publishers who were accused of taking advantage of the fact that libraries are a "captive audience" by setting high subscription prices on new journals. [...] In view of the importance of journals to the scientific enterprise, it is surprising that the cost crisis affecting journals and libraries has not prompted more efforts at corrective action. The photocopying issue has claimed primary attention but other journal problems are enforcing the need for new answers to the old questions of who pays and how much. * Curtis G. Benjamin, "Support for Williams & Wilkins," _Science_, June 28, 1974, pp. 1330-1331. [A letter to the editor] [Benjamin names some society publishers offering financial support to the plaintiffs in the Williams & Wilkins lawsuit.] This evidence of professional society concern exposes an odd conflict of interest that needs to be pondered thoughtfully by all scientists. While many individual scientists, along with many librarians and other information specialists, are pushing hard for exempted privileges of photocopying for scientific and educational uses, the officers of their professional organizations (and especially their publications officers) are drawing back from the sure prospect of resulting losses of subscription and advertising income to their already straitened journals. And, strangely enough, many members of the societies that are supporting the Williams & Wilkins appeal are also supporting the National Education Assocation's Ad Hoc Committee of Educational Organizations and Institutions on Copyright Law Revision, a group that has made the loudest and most persistent demands for the broad special exemptions. Scientists should not confuse the rhetoric of "free flow of information" with the economics of "flow of free information." There is no such thing as free information; somebody has to pay the cost of any system for the organization and dissemination of science information. The privilege of "free" photocopying simply is not compatible with the economics of book and journal publishing. Why then, do so many scientists seem to think they can have their cake and eat it too? * Ralph D. Tanz, "Copyright Laws," _Science_, August 30, 1974, p. 735. [A letter to the editor] Curtis G. Benjamin's letter (28 June, p. 1331) in support of Williams & Wilkins' Supreme Court suit against the U.S. government for copyright infringement omits some of the problems on the other side of the fence. Just as publishing companies are faced with the financial squeeze attendant to inflation, so too are academic institutions. While costs have risen, departmental budgets have fallen further and further behind, and now new demands are placed on us to pay for the dissemination of information to our students. Publishers seem to be saying that if we are unable to pay, then our students have no right to receive information we deem necessary. But let us examine this a little further. Funds that made our research possible did not come from the publishers. Nor did the publishers assist us in writing the manuscripts. Indeed, they charge us for reprints, presumably make a profit selling their journals, and do not reimburse the authors for their efforts. Thus, the author does the fund raising, the thinking, the laboratory work, and the writing, and then the publishers claim ownership, apparently because it may make money for them. And to top it off, they now want us to pay for the privilege of using the articles we have published to teach our own students. I agree that the copyright laws should be revised, vesting ownership of an article either in the name(s) of the author(s) or the scientific society responsible for publication --but certainly not the publisher. * A few comments I'm reproducing these fragments primarily to note their uncanny similarities to the OA debates 30 years later. One of my first thoughts was that 1974 wasn't *that* long ago, so of course there would be similarities. (I was a grad student in 1974, for example, so it's roughly within the period of my own scholarly career.) But let it sink in. In 1974 there was no World Wide Web. In 1974, there wasn't even a BITNET, JANET, or USENET. If you date the internet to the adoption of TCP/IP, then there wasn't even an Internet. There was no PubMed or PubMed Central. Journal prices had only recently begun to rise faster than inflation. Photocopying machines were not just a disruptive technology; they were the cutting-edge technology for copying and sharing information. Williams & Wilkins v. The United States was decided against the publisher-plaintiffs in the U.S. Court of Claims in 1973. Immediately after their defeat, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court ruling in 1975. The decision in the Court of Claims, 487 F.2d 1345 (1973) http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/c487F2d1345.html http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materials/cases/c487F2d1345.html The decision in the Supreme Court, 420 U.S. 376, 95 S.Ct. 1344 (1975) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=42… http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=42… Williams & Wilkins is still an important precedent in U.S. copyright law. However, soon after the Supreme Court upheld the decision in favor of scientific photocopying, Congress enacted sweeping revisions of U.S. copyright law, lengthening copyright terms, abolishing the need to register or renew copyrights, and taking other steps that continue to hobble education and research. The Copyright Act of 1976 http://www.title17.com/contentLegMat/legmat.html http://www.title17.com/contentLegMat/legmat.html Although the debate from 1974 eerily recapitulates some of the debates still raging today, there is at least one important dissimilarity to point out. The contemporary debate is *not* about the boundaries of "fair use". Open-access advocates do not argue that providing OA to copyrighted works is already permitted by fair use; on the contrary, they argue that OA to copyrighted works requires the copyright-holder's consent. ---------- A haiku introduction to open access Once I started writing haiku about open access, I couldn't stop. Here's a mercifully small sampling. Believe me, the ones I've omitted are even more atrocious than the ones I've included. If you publish it, and readers can't afford it, does it make a sound? They don't pay authors, editors or referees. Then they want the rights. Unlike musicians, scholars consent to OA without losing dough. OA articles are not without cost but are without price. Share perfect copies with a worldwide audience. Marginal cost, zip. I love print, paper. But I love searching, linking, using, sharing more. Libraries are caught: High prices, tight licences, profs who demand more. OA archiving takes a couple of minutes. So what's the problem? Authors determine where to submit their papers, whether to archive. OA and TA can coexist --til authors decide otherwise. Sure, change copyright and peer review. But OA doesn't have to wait. Yes, launch new journals. But OA through archiving doesn't have to wait. Don't say "author pays" when funders will pay the fee or journals waive it. P&T panels harm science if they demand the same-old, same-old. The current system evolved over centuries. So did dinosaurs. ---------- Major open access developments in September 2004 This is a selection of open-access developments since the last issue of the newsletter, taken from the Open Access News blog, which I write with other contributors and update daily. I give both the item URL and blog posting URL so that you can read the original story as well as what I or another blog contributor had to say about it. For other developments, the blog archive is browseable and searchable. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html Here are the major stories from September * The NIH OA plan sees new developments, wide news coverage. * Two major decisions call for OA to data. * WIPO asked to consider two OA-friendly proposals. * Governments spend on OA infrastructure. * The Nature Publishing Group experiments with many kinds of wider access. * The NIH OA plan sees new developments, wide news coverage. For detail and analysis of recent developments on the NIH OA plan, see the lead story above. Here are some articles and news stories from the past month. Janet Coleman, Open access would cost NIH roughly $2.5 million, agency's Lipman estimates, Washington Fax, September 27, 2004. http://www.washingtonfax.com/ http://www.washingtonfax.com/ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963876… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963876… Anon., A new alliance to support open access, Access, September 2004. http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=10 http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=10 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962903… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962903… AAAS, Update on Open/Public Access, September 14, 2004. A PPT slide show focusing on the position of the AAAS and _Science_. http://www.aau.edu/issues/openaccess.pdf http://www.aau.edu/issues/openaccess.pdf Mark Hermodson, The Open Access Debate, Protein Science, 13, 10 (2004) pp. 2569-2570. http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/full/13/10/2569?ct http://www.proteinscience.org/cgi/content/full/13/10/2569?ct http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10961454… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10961454… Jan Velterop, publisher and director of BioMed Central, wrote an open letter (September 23, 2004) to Elias Zerhouni in support of the NIH open-access plan. http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/miscell/?issue=20 http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/miscell/?issue=20 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10960372… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10960372… Jeffrey M. Drazen and Gregory D. Curfman, Public Access to Biomedical Research, New England Journal of Medicine, September 23, 2004. An editorial. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/351/13/1343 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/351/13/1343 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959555… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959555… Anon., Publishing for Nothing, Science for Free, DCLnews, September 21, 2004. http://www.dclab.com/stm_open_access.asp http://www.dclab.com/stm_open_access.asp http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958840… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958840… Peter Suber, Public should have free access to research it funds, Tallahassee Democrat, September 21, 2004. An op-ed for the Knight Ridder Tribune papers. It also appeared in Jewish World Review on September 23. http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/9714842.htm http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/opinion/9714842.htm http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0904/research_access.asp http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0904/research_access.asp http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957714… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957714… Rudy Baum, Socialized Science, Chemical & Engineering News, September 20, 2004. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/8238edit.html http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/8238edit.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957249… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957249… Also see the STLQ thread on Baum's editorial, Is Open Access Socialized Science? http://stlq.info/archives/001593.html#001593 http://stlq.info/archives/001593.html#001593 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958862… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958862… The Alliance for Taxpayer Access issued a press release (September 17, 2004) praising the National Academy of Sciences for its endorsement of the NIH open-access plan. https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1039.html https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1039.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10954514… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10954514… Anon., NIH floats open-access plan amidst objections, Research Research, September 13, 2004. http://www.researchresearch.co.uk/news.cfm?pagename=newsStory&type=default&… http://www.researchresearch.co.uk/news.cfm?pagename=newsStory&type=default&… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958659… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958659… Susan Morrissey, NIH Unveils Draft Open-Access Plan, Chemical and Engineering News, September 13, 2004. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8237/8237notw4.html http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8237/8237notw4.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10954296… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10954296… Barbara Quint, NIH Requires Open Access for Its Funded Medical Research, Information Today, September 13, 2004. http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb040913-1.shtml http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb040913-1.shtml http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950828… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950828… Bob Roehr, NIH moves towards open access, BMJ, September 11, 2004. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/590-c http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/590-c http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10956830… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10956830… Jocelyn Kaiser, NIH Proposes 6-Month Public Access to Papers, Science, September 10, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org.ezp1.harvard.edu/cgi/content/full/305/5690/1548b http://www.sciencemag.org.ezp1.harvard.edu/cgi/content/full/305/5690/1548b http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948250… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948250… Taxpayers deserve to see for free medical research backed by federal dollars, an unsigned editorial in the September 10 Fort-Wayne News Sentinel supporting the NIH plan. http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/9628610.htm http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/9628610.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947343… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947343… Free up medical research, an unsigned editorial in the September 9 Orlando Sentinel supporting the NIH plan. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped093090904sep09,1,18476… http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped093090904sep09,1,18476… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947343… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947343… Experiments in publishing, Nature 431, 111, September 9, 2004. http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7005/… http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7005/… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946746… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946746… Bradie Metheny, NIH open access publishing policy receives initial good marks from most stakeholders, Washington Fax, September 8, 2004. http://www.washingtonfax.com/p1/2004/20040908.html http://www.washingtonfax.com/p1/2004/20040908.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946703… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946703… Geoff Brumfiel, Biomedical agency floats open-access plan, News@Nature, September 8, 2004. http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040906/full/431115a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040906/full/431115a.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946692… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946692… Paula Park, NIH unveils open access draft, The Scientist, September 8, 2004. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040908/04/ http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040908/04/ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946591… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946591… Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society, released the September 8 letter he wrote to Senators Arlen Specter and Tom Harkin, opposing the NIH OA plan. http://www.dcprinciples.org/senateletter.pdf http://www.dcprinciples.org/senateletter.pdf http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948485… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948485… Jocelyn Kaiser, NIH Proposes Public Access to Papers, Science Magazine, September 7, 2004 http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2004/907/2 http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2004/907/2 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946538… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946538… Susan Morrisey, NIH Unveils Draft Plan, Chemical & Engineering News, September 7, 2004. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8236/8236nihaccess.html http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8236/8236nihaccess.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946013… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946013… Anon., NIH schlägt Open Access Modell vor, Intern.de, September 7, 2004. http://www.intern.de/news/5989.html http://www.intern.de/news/5989.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945901… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945901… Mary Mosquera, NIH plans public access to research results, Government Computer News, September 7, 2004. http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/27186-1.html http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/27186-1.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945888… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945888… Dee Ann Divis, NIH proposes free research access, United Press International, September 6, 2004. http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040906-021956-5244r http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040906-021956-5244r http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945757… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945757… Julianne Basinger, NIH Invites Comment on Proposal Requiring Free Online Access to Research It Supports, Chronicle of Higher Education, September 7, 2004. http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/09/2004090701n.htm http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/09/2004090701n.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945593… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945593… Ranty Islam, Das Geschäft mit dem Wissen, Die Welt, September 6, 2004. http://www.welt.de/data/2004/09/03/327429.html http://www.welt.de/data/2004/09/03/327429.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945041… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945041… Rick Weiss, NIH Proposes Free Access For Public to Research Data, Washington Post, September 6, 2004. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64389-2004Sep5.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64389-2004Sep5.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944718… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944718… Susan Morrissey, NIH Weights Open Access, Chemical and Engineering News, September 6, 2004. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8236/8236notw6.html http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/8236/8236notw6.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944710… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944710… Vivian Siegel released her August 5 letter to Elias Zerhouni in support of the NIH open-access plan. Siegel wrote on behalf of the Public Library of Science. http://www.plos.org/downloads/ZerhouniPLoS.pdf http://www.plos.org/downloads/ZerhouniPLoS.pdf http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944019… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944019… Andy Gass, Open Access As Public Policy, Public Library of Science, released September 3 in advance of publication September 21 in the October issue of PLoS Biology. http://www.plos.org/downloads/OAPP.pdf http://www.plos.org/downloads/OAPP.pdf http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944013… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10944013… Nobel Winners, Library Groups Voice Support for Open Access at NIH, Library Journal, September 7, 2004. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA450576?display=breakingNews http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA450576?display=breakingNews http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943512… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943512… Danielle Belopotosky, Online federal library on health research sparks outcry, GovExec.com, September 3, 2004. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/090304td2.htm http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0904/090304td2.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943314… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943314… Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information, NIH, September 3, 2004. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943294… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943294… Jocelyn Kaiser, Zerhouni Plans a Nudge Toward Open Access, Science, September 3, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5689/1386b http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5689/1386b http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10942144… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10942144… Ushma Savla and John Hawley, Want the world to know? Publish here, The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 114 (2004) p. 602. http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/114/5/602 http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/114/5/602 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10941497… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10941497… Nobelpreisträger fordern freien Zugang zu Forschungsergebnissen, Spiegel, September 1, 2004. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,316133,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,316133,00.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10941442… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10941442… Four library associations --the ARL, ALA, AALL, and SLA-- released their August 31 letter to Elias Zerhouni in support of the NIH open-access plan. http://www.arl.org/info/openaccess/arlzerhouni.pdf http://www.arl.org/info/openaccess/arlzerhouni.pdf http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946435… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946435… Anon., House Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill Includes "Open Access" Language, FASEB News, August 2004 (scroll to p. 4). http://www.faseb.org/opa/newsletter/8x04/august_04_nl.pdf http://www.faseb.org/opa/newsletter/8x04/august_04_nl.pdf http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963822… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963822… * Two major decisions call for OA to data. Each of these decisions would deserve attention in its own right. By occurring in the same month, they show the momentum for the idea of OA to data --more momentum, it seems, for the similar but different idea of OA to research literature based on those data. (1) On September 8, 2004, The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued a public statement calling for an open-access registry and database of drug trial data. The statement also announced that ICMJE member journals would not publish research articles based on unregistered drug trials. Among the participating journals are the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The statement was published in all the ICMJE member journals. Here for example are the published versions from the New England Journal of Medicine, Jama, and ICMJE itself. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe048225 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe048225 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/11/1363 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/11/1363 http://www.icmje.org/clin_trial.pdf http://www.icmje.org/clin_trial.pdf Drug trial data are different from peer-reviewed research articles. The overriding need for sharing drug trial data is to correct an imbalance, so that negative results are as readily available as positive results. However, this could be done in toll-access database. The fact that the journal editors are demanding that the database be open-access means that removing access barriers is as important to them as correcting an imbalance. Why? The ICMJE editors don't explain. But the reason seems to be the same one that has driven the OA movement all these years: OA serves the public interest by accelerating research and all the benefits that depend on research advances. Moreover, to secure these benefits, the ICMJE editors did essentially the same thing that the NIH is proposing to do: they put an OA condition on their participation. The ICMJE editors are saying that if scientists want ICMJE journals to publish their articles on drug trial data, then the underlying drug trials must provide OA to their data. The NIH is saying that if scientists want an NIH research grant, then they must provide OA to any resulting articles through deposit in PMC. These similarities sharpen the unspoken background question. Why don't the ICMJE journals themselves do more to permit or require OA to research articles, including their own articles? (As an Elsevier journal, The Lancet permits its authors to deposit published articles in OA repositories.) Here are some news stories on the editors' public statement. Drummond Rennie, Trial Registration: A Great Idea Switches From Ignored to Irresistible, JAMA, September 15, 2004. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/11/1359 http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/11/1359 Laurie Barclay, Call for Mandatory Clinical Trial Registration, Open Access to Results, Medscape, September 14, 2004. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/489219 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/489219 Q&A Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen [editor-in-chief of NEJM] on drug trial results, Boston Globe, September 12, 2004 http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/09/12/qa_dr_jeffrey_m_drazen_o… http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/09/12/qa_dr_jeffrey_m_drazen_o… Alicia Ault, House berates FDA, drug makers; US Congressional subcommittee holds hearing on clinical trial disclosure rules, The Scientist, September 10, 2004. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040910/04/ http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040910/04/ Medical journals to tight up rules and regulations, Pravda, September 10, 2004 http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/09/10/56027.html http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2004/09/10/56027.html Clinical drug trials 'distorted', BBC News, September 9, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3640488.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3640488.stm Philip Cohen, Medical journals to require clinical trial registration, New Scientist, September 9, 2004. http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996378 http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996378 Andre Picard, Medical journals get tough on drug companies, Globe and Mail, September 9, 2004. http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2C713C59 http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2C713C59 Daniel Engber, Top Medical Journals Make Disclosure of Clinical-Trial Results a Condition of Publication, Chronicle of Higher Education, September 9, 2004. http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/09/2004090901n.htm http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2004/09/2004090901n.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947426… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947426… Maggie Fox, Show us All Your Data, Medical Journals Demand, Reuters, September 8, 2004. http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=6183894&… http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=6183894&… Laura Gilcrest, New bill targets drug data disclosure, CBS MarketWatch, September 8, 2004. http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B80E3167D-8965-4AC9-9FE4-1… http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B80E3167D-8965-4AC9-9FE4-1… Amanda Gardner, Medical Journals Tighten Rules on Clinical Trials, Health Central, September 8, 2004. http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=521110 http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=521110 Here are some recent articles and news stories on the general topic of OA to drug trial data, but *not* focusing on the ICMJE statement. Cheryll Barron, Big Pharma snared by net, The Guardian, September 26, 2004. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1312765,00.html http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1312765,00.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963727… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963727… Jennifer Couzin, Legislators Propose a Registry to Track Clinical Trials From Start to Finish, Science, September 17, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5691/1695 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5691/1695 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958114… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958114… Merrill Goozner, Registering Clinical Trials Doesn't Go Far Enough, GoozNews, September 12, 2004. http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000074.html http://www.gooznews.com/archives/000074.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951758… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951758… Toshi A Furukawa, All clinical trials must be reported in detail and made publicly available, BMJ, September 11, 2004. A letter to the editor. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/626-a http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/626-a http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947970… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947970… Editorial: Full disclosure on drug research, Toronto Star, September 10, 2004. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Arti… http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Arti… Jennifer Couzin, Momentum Builds for Clinical Trial Registration, ScienceNOW, September 10, 2004. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2004/910/1?etoc http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2004/910/1?etoc http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950827… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950827… Anon., Change for Clinical Trials on the way, Ivanhoe's Medical Breakthroughs, September 10, 2004. http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=9476 http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=9476 NIH Proposes Making Clinical Trial Data Free to Public, Medical News Today, September 7, 2004. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13022 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13022 John George, Glaxo begins Web data system, Philadelphia Business Journal, September 2, 2004. http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2004/08/30/daily20… http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2004/08/30/daily20… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10941451… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10941451… (2) A panel of the National Research Council has concluded that the benefits of open access to genome data on pathogens outweigh the risk of misuse by terrorists. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947763… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947763… One way to frame the question is whether open access is always more useful than toll access, or whether it's only more useful for innocuous information that can't be put to harmful uses. The question is important because human cleverness can put just about any information to destructive uses, and human viciousness all too often tries to do so. For the NRC panel, the question was focused on genomic data on pathogens. After a thorough examination, the panel concluded that the benefits of OA outweigh the risks even when the risks are starkly acknowledged. It would be a mistake to assume that this decision minimized the real risks. Instead, it's a thorough and informed appreciation of both the risks and the benefits, and therefore one of the strongest statements of the benefits of OA to date. Here are some articles and news stories on the panel's report. Emily Singer, Scientists stumped by dual push for open access, secrecy, News@Nature, September 28, 2004. http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040927/full/nm1004-1006a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040927/full/nm1004-1006a.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10964649… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10964649… Keep genome data freely accessible, The Lancet, September 25, 2004. An unsigned editorial endorsing the panel's conclusions. http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9440/full/llan.364.9440.analysis… http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9440/full/llan.364.9440.analysis… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10960314… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10960314… David Malakoff, Report Upholds Public Access to Genetic Codes, Science Magazine, September 17, 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5691/1692a http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5691/1692a http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10954315… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10954315… R. Pielke, Jr., Public Access to Genome Data and the NAS as Policy Advocate, Prometheus: Health, September 12, 2004. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/index.html#000… http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/index.html#000… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951918… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951918… U.S. State Department, U.S. Report Supports Unrestricted Access to Pathogen Genomes, September 10, 2004. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=… http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=… Kate Ruder, Information on Pathogens Should Flow Freely, Report Says, Genome News Network, September 10, 2004. http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/09/10/genomeinfo.php http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/09/10/genomeinfo.php Eugene Russo, NRC wants genome data unfetteredNothing to be gained from restricting access to bioterror agent genomes, says report, The Scientist, September 10, 2004. http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040910/01/ http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040910/01/ Study: Germ data should be shared, Associated Press, September 10, 2004. http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/studygerm10.htm http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/studygerm10.htm Maggie Fox, Hiding Genome Data Won't Protect Us, Experts Say, Reuters, Sept. 9. 2004. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=6196728 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=6196728 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948291… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948291… U.S. Urged to Keep Gene Data on Pathogens Open, HealthDay, September 9, 2004. http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=521128 http://www.healthday.com/view.cfm?id=521128 Randolph Schmid, Panel urges sharing of data on germs, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, September 9, 2004. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Bi… http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Bi… * WIPO asked to consider two OA-friendly proposals. At its current session (September 27 - October 5, 2004), WIPO will take up two proposals that could greatly improve the flow of information. It may deliberate on them before I mail this issue; but if so, I probably won't have time to digest the developments until later. (1) Proposal by Argentina and Brazil for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/wo_ga_31_11.… http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/document/govbody/wo_gb_ga/pdf/wo_ga_31_11.… Quoting from p. 3: While access to information and knowledge sharing are regarded as essential elements in fostering innovation and creativity in the information economy, adding new layers of intellectual property protection to the digital environment would obstruct the free flow of information and scuttle efforts to set up new arrangements for promoting innovation and creativity, through initiatives such as the 'Creative Commons'. The ongoing controversy surrounding the use of technological protection measures in the digital environment is also of great concern. The provisions of any treaties in this field must be balanced and clearly take on board the interests of consumers and the public at large. It is important to safeguard the exceptions and limitations existing in the domestic laws of Member States. In order to tap into the development potential offered by the digital environment, it is important to bear in mind the relevance of open access models for the promotion of innovation and creativity. In this regard, WIPO should consider undertaking activities with a view to exploring the promise held by open collaborative projects to develop public goods, as exemplified by the Human Genome Project and Open Source Software. (2) Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization (debated at athe WIPO meeting on September 30) http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipodeclaration.pdf http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/futureofwipodeclaration.pdf https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1069.html https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1069.html Humanity faces a global crisis in the governance of knowledge, technology and culture. The crisis is manifest in many ways....Morally repugnant inequality of access to education, knowledge and technology undermines development and social cohesion; Anticompetitive practices in the knowledge economy impose enormous costs on consumers and retard innovation; Private interests misappropriate social and public goods, and lock up the public domain. At the same time, there are astoundingly promising innovations in information, medical and other essential technologies, as well as in social movements and business models. We are witnessing highly successful campaigns for access to drugs for AIDS, scientific journals, genomic information and other databases, and hundreds of innovative collaborative efforts to create public goods, including the Internet, the World Wide Web...the Creative Commons, GNU Linux and other free and open software....As an intergovernmental organization, however, WIPO embraced a culture of creating and expanding monopoly privileges, often without regard to consequences. The continuous expansion of these privileges and their enforcement mechanisms has led to grave social and economic costs, and has hampered and threatened other important systems of creativity and innovation....The mantras that "more [copyright protection] is better" or "that less is never good" are disingenuous and dangerous -- and have greatly compromised the standing of WIPO, especially among experts in intellectual property policy. WIPO must change....There must be a moratorium on new treaties and harmonization of standards that expand and strengthen monopolies and further restrict access to knowledge.... To sign the Geneva Declaration, send an email to <geneva_declaration(a)cptech.org>. List of existing signatures on the Geneva Declaration http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/signatures.html http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/signatures.html Four major U.S. library associations, the AALL, ALA, ARL, and SLA --all friends of open access-- released an open letter endordsing the Geneva Declaration on September 17, 2004. http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/WIPODeclaratio092704.pdf http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/WIPODeclaratio092704.pdf For more information on the two WIPO proposals, see the Consumer Project on Technology web page on WIPO http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/ http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/ ...and the CPTech page on the Geneva Declaration http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html ...and the agenda for the WIPO General Assembly, 31st Session, September 27 - October 5, 2004 http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=6309 http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=6309 Here are a few articles and news stories on the proposals. Anon., Call to 'unblinker' WIPO, P2P.net, September 30, 2004. http://p2pnet.net/story/2589 http://p2pnet.net/story/2589 Anon., Activists challenge UN intellectual property pact, Stuff.co.nz, September 20, 2004. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3050100a6026,00.html http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3050100a6026,00.html Frances Williams, Development needs 'override intellectual property protection', Financial Times, September 30, 2004. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/87d93e54-127e-11d9-863e-00000e2511c8.htmli http://news.ft.com/cms/s/87d93e54-127e-11d9-863e-00000e2511c8.htmli Anon., UN to Relax Protection for Intellectual Property to Help Developing Countries, Associated Press, September 29, 2004. http://english.daralhayat.com/business/09-2004/Article-20040929-4b0e450b-c0… http://english.daralhayat.com/business/09-2004/Article-20040929-4b0e450b-c0… The IFLA position on the Geneva Declaration on the Future of WIPO, September 29, 2004 http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/CLM-GenevaDeclaration2004.html http://www.ifla.org/III/clm/CLM-GenevaDeclaration2004.html James Boyle, A Manifesto On Wipo And The Future Of Intellectual Property, Duke Law & Technology Review, September 8, 2004. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0009.html http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2004dltr0009.html * Governments spend on OA infrastructure. Several developments in September suggest that governments are willing to spend public funds on OA infrastructure. The NIH OA plan belongs in this category, but here are some others. This is a remarkably long list when you consider that it's limited to initiatives announced in the past month. The Australian federal government is funding a major upgrade and expansion of the Australian Digital Theses Program. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10837338%5E12… http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10837338%255E… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10961197… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10961197… The UK government, through JISC, will fund infrastructure for OA to UK theses and dissertations, and is now soliciting proposals for the job. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=funding_etheses http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=funding_etheses http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957996… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957996… The UK government, also through JISC, agreed to renew the BioMed Central institutional memberships that it first bought for all UK universities in July 2003. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=biomed_pr_210904 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=biomed_pr_210904 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10956855… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10956855… The publicly-funded BBC continued to take steps toward providing an open access to its broadcasting archive. http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1308105,00.html http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1308105,00.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957680… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957680… The Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access. http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/signatories.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957746… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10957746… Martin Feijen and Annemiek van der Kuil published a helpful overview of Holland's DARE project. http://www.surf.nl/en/publicaties/index2.php?hb=1&oid=29 http://www.surf.nl/en/publicaties/index2.php?hb=1&oid=29 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951686… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951686… Germany's largest state, North Rhine-Westphalia, signed the Berlin Declaration and launched the Digital Peer Publishing Initiative (DIPP). The DIPP will host eight OA journals and develop open-source software and open-access licenses for online scholarly publishing. http://www.mwf.nrw.de/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2004/pm_30_09_2004pdf.pdf http://www.mwf.nrw.de/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2004/pm_30_09_2004pdf.pdf http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10966372… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10966372… The Max Planck Gesellschaft and Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe, with more than six million Euros of German government funding, will develop eSciDoc, an open-source internet platform for open-access scientific communication, publication, and collaboration. http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/… http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945780… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945780… Also see Bobby Pickering, German Government funds OA initiative, Information World Review, October 1, 2004. http://www.iwr.co.uk/IWR/1158510 http://www.iwr.co.uk/IWR/1158510 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10966513… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10966513… China has authorized the locally-hosted broadband connection to provide Chinese access to Highwire journals. http://highwire.stanford.edu/inthepress/stories/CERNET.dtl http://highwire.stanford.edu/inthepress/stories/CERNET.dtl http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951675… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951675… China has also invested an undisclosed amount in some of nation's scientific journals in an effort to improve their stature and reach. This does not seem to include OA, though it could and should. http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1610&langua… http://www.scidev.net/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=readnews&itemid=1610&langua… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959446… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959446… Taiwan's Academica Sinica helped launch a Taiwanese version Creative Commons, making Taiwan the 23rd country with a national version of CC. http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2004/09/05/1094357843.htm http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/2004/09/05/1094357843.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10943891… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10943891… The Canadian version of Creative Commons launched on September 30. http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/technology/story.html?id=1f8f73f… http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/technology/story.html?id=1f8f73f… One of the U.S. Federal Reserve banks supports two open-access archives of national economic data. http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959662… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959662… The U.S. Office of Scientific and Technical Information now hosts an OA database of government contracts. http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb040913-2.shtml http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb040913-2.shtml http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950834… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950834… The U.S. National Library of Medicine launched the NLM Catalog, a new searchable OA database of bibliographic data. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/news/catlaunch04.html http://www.nlm.nih.gov/news/catlaunch04.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10952564… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10952564… The U.S. Interagency Committee on Government Information is still collecting public comments on its plan to provide federated searching of OA government information distributed among the many databases maintained by the agencies and offices of the federal government. http://www.gcn.com/23_27/technology-policy/27241-1.html http://www.gcn.com/23_27/technology-policy/27241-1.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951859… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10951859… The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office now provides open access to most new patent applications. http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/sep/biobus3_040927.html http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/sep/biobus3_040927.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963765… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963765… The U.S. ERIC resumed acquiring new OA content after its recent reorganization and on October 1 provided OA to 107,000 full-text non-journal documents that were previously TA only. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962908… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962908… The European Commission inquiry into STM publishing and OA continues to move along. http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=06 http://www.aardvarknet.info/access/number50/monthnews.cfm?monthnews=06 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962902… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962902… Here's a switch: a private OA infrastrucutre initiative to benefit governments. DigitalGlobe, which sells satellite imagery and geospatial information, gives some away to state and local governments in the U.S. http://media.digitalglobe.com/index.php?s=press_release_popup&ITEM=73 http://media.digitalglobe.com/index.php?s=press_release_popup&ITEM=73 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947614… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10947614… Two developments on the down side: copyright problems will block free online access to the publicly-funded British Library Archive and copyright reforms may harm research and education in Canada. http://www.newmediazero.com/nma/story.asp?id=249412 http://www.newmediazero.com/nma/story.asp?id=249412 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943532… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_08_29_fosblogarchive.html#a10943532… http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/22/638560.html http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/22/638560.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959497… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10959497… http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/22/edweb_040922.html http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/22/edweb_040922.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963783… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963783… Here are a few *calls* for government spending on OA. Perhaps I can shortly report that the governments are heeding the calls. At the ESOF 2004 conference, Khotso Mokhele from South Africa called on the EU to invest in scientific infrastructure in developing countries. From the audience, an unnamed CORDIS official explained that 32 million Euros of the FP6 budget were earmarked for developing countries, of which only 17 million have so far been spent. The official continued: "We have recognised that infrastructure is the main issue in those countries and we will address this issue in FP7." Institutional repositories are very inexpensive and very effective and would take only a small portion of the remaining 17 million. http://dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?CALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=… http://dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?CALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950002… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950002… Here's more on how CORDIS is spending its research infrastructure funds. http://makeashorterlink.com/?R23632769 http://makeashorterlink.com/?R23632769 In a September 23 article, D. Balasubramanian supported the OA work of Subbiah Arunachalam and called on the Indian government to adopt a plan, similar to the NIH OA plan, or the recommendations of the UK report, to mandate OA to government-funded research. http://www.hindu.com/seta/2004/09/23/stories/2004092300071600.htm http://www.hindu.com/seta/2004/09/23/stories/2004092300071600.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958944… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10958944… Also see K. Satyanarayana's similar call on the Indian government published about a month earlier. http://www.icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2004/aug_Editorial2.pdf http://www.icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2004/aug_Editorial2.pdf http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948494… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10948494… Michael Geist called on the Canadian government to adopt a policy similar to the NIH plan in the U.S. http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1F145D69 http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1F145D69 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963924… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10963924… OpenTheGovernment issued a well-documented report on needless government secrecy in the U.S. and called for more OA to government information. http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/secrecy_reportcard.pdf http://www.openthegovernment.org/otg/secrecy_reportcard.pdf http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10955136… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10955136… Finally, as long as I'm covering OA infrastructure investments in September, let me add these *privately funded* initiatives. BioMed Central launched its Institutional Repository service, which will install, populate, and maintain OA repositories (using DSpace) for institutions that wish to outsource these jobs. http://www.openrepository.com/ http://www.openrepository.com/ http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/pr-releases?pr=20040913 http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/pr-releases?pr=20040913 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950822… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950822… Harvard and MIT released version 1.0 of the Virtual Data Center, an open-source system for data archiving. VDC has long been available in beta. http://thedata.org/index.php/Main/HomePage http://thedata.org/index.php/Main/HomePage http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10964774… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10964774… NYU and partner institutions will develop the Archivists' Toolkit, an open-source, OAI-compliant program for physical and digital archives. The project has funding from the Mellon Foundation. http://euterpe.bobst.nyu.edu/toolkit/ http://euterpe.bobst.nyu.edu/toolkit/ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10960339… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_19_fosblogarchive.html#a10960339… Cornell University will soon release DPubS, an open-source system for electronic scholarly publication. http://dpubs.org/ http://dpubs.org/ http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v51/i06/06a03501.htm http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v51/i06/06a03501.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962955… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10962955… The Max Planck Gesellschaft and Fachinformationszentrum Karlsruhe are teaming up to develop eSciDoc, an open-source internet platform for open-access scientific communication, publication, and collaboration. It has both public and private funding. http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/… http://www.mpg.de/bilderBerichteDokumente/dokumentation/pressemitteilungen/… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945780… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10945780… The Open Society Institute released the third edition of Raym Crow's Guide to Institutional Repository Software, which now covers nine open-source systems for creating open-access, OAI-compliant repositories. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/software/ http://www.soros.org/openaccess/software/ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950925… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_12_fosblogarchive.html#a10950925… * The Nature Publishing Group experiments with many kinds of wider access. Watch the Nature Publishing Group (NPG). It is vigorously exploring several different ways to widen access. Here are those that broke into the news in the past month alone. The NPG and the European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) are launching an open-access journal, Molecular Systems Biology (no web site yet). First issue should appear this month (October 2004). http://www.macmillan.com/07092004emboandnpg.asp http://www.macmillan.com/07092004emboandnpg.asp http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946596… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946596… NPG has launched news@nature, a science news service with free online content. There is also a priced, premium edition. http://www.nature.com/news/ http://www.nature.com/news/ http://www.macmillan.com/12072004PressReleaseNPG.asp http://www.macmillan.com/12072004PressReleaseNPG.asp Nature Insight is offering six months of free online access to a collection of articles on RNA interference, subsidized by Merck & Co. and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. http://www.nature.com/nature/insights/7006.html http://www.nature.com/nature/insights/7006.html Nature Reviews is offering six months of free online access to a collection of articles on proteomics, subsidized by Sigma-Aldrich. http://www.nature.com/reviews/focus/proteomics/ http://www.nature.com/reviews/focus/proteomics/ Nature Reviews Drug Discovery and Nature Reviews Genetics are offering two months of free online access to a collection of articles on pharmacogenetics. http://www.nature.com/reviews/focus/pgx/ http://www.nature.com/reviews/focus/pgx/ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946675… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946675… NPG launched _Nature Methods_ October 1. It's not OA, but NPG is offering free subscriptions to "qualifying researchers" --without explaining who qualifies. http://www.nature.com/nmeth/ http://www.nature.com/nmeth/ http://www.nature.com/nmeth/press_release/nmeth1004.html http://www.nature.com/nmeth/press_release/nmeth1004.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10966790… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_26_fosblogarchive.html#a10966790… "Experiments in publishing", a Nature editorial on open access (accessible only to subscribers). http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7005/… http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7005/… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946746… http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_09_05_fosblogarchive.html#a10946746… ---------- Coming up later this month Here are some important OA-related events coming up in October * October 1, 2004. Quoting the ERIC web site: "Effective October 1, more than 107,000 full-text non-journal documents (issued 1993-2004), previously available through fee-based services only, will be available [at ERIC] for free." http://www.eric.ed.gov/ http://www.eric.ed.gov/ * October 11, 2004. The Royal Society of Edinburgh meets to finalize, sign, and most likely release the Scottish Declaration of Open Access. http://widwisawn.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/issues/vol2/issue2_3_3.html#news http://widwisawn.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/issues/vol2/issue2_3_3.html#news http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SSISWGOA/declaration.htm http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SSISWGOA/declaration.htm * October 19, 2004. The Public LIbrary of Science will launch its second open-access journal, _PLoS Medicine_. http://www.plosmedicine.org/medicine/ http://www.plosmedicine.org/medicine/ * Sometime this month. The UK government should issue its response to the open-access recommendations made by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in its July 20 report. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399… http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399… * Notable conferences this month --an unusually large number for one month Access to health information in developing countries: the role of information and communication technology http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent&event_id=2982&calen… http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent&event_id=2982&calen… London, September 30 - October 1, 2004 Symposium on Open Access and Digital Preservation http://www.metascholar.org/OADP-Symposium.html http://www.metascholar.org/OADP-Symposium.html Atlanta, October 2, 2004 Access to health information: The role of systematic reviews. Cochrane Colloquium http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent&event_id=2983&calen… http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent&event_id=2983&calen… Ottawa, October 2-6, 2004 Strategic online publishers workshop (sponsored by INASP) http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent&event_id=3883&calen… http://www.bellanet.org/calendar/index.cfm?op=ShowEvent&event_id=3883&calen… Nairobi, October 3-6, 2004 STM Publishing - at the Crossroads? Challenges and Responses (open access is among the topics) http://www.stm-assoc.org/newsflash/gaprogram.php http://www.stm-assoc.org/newsflash/gaprogram.php Frankfurt, October 4-5, 2004 Institutional Repositories: Is There Anything Left to Say? (a public lecture at OCLC by Paul Conway) http://www.oclc.org/research/dss/conway.htm http://www.oclc.org/research/dss/conway.htm Dublin, Ohio, October 7, 2004 10 Years of Connectivity: Libraries, the World Wide Web, and the Next Decade (sponsored by LITA/ALA) http://makeashorterlink.com/?H55F23C76 http://makeashorterlink.com/?H55F23C76 St. Louis, October 7-10, 2004 Building the Digital Library: The Role of Digital Libraries http://lectnotes.itc.gu.edu.au:8888/htdocs/alia/bdl.pdf http://lectnotes.itc.gu.edu.au:8888/htdocs/alia/bdl.pdf Brisbane, October 8, 2004 Internet Librarian International 2004: Access, Architecture & Action: Strategies for the New Digital World; includes a session, Open Access Forum for Internet Librarians (Session B104), on Monday, October 11, 15:00 - 17:00. http://www.internet-librarian.com/index.shtml http://www.internet-librarian.com/index.shtml London, October 10-12, 2004 Future Trends in Science Editing and Publishing: Bringing Science to Society (Twelfth International Conference of Science Editors) http://www.ifsemex.org/ http://www.ifsemex.org/ Merida, Mexico, October 10-14, 2004 Meeting to sign and launch the Scottish Declaration of Open Access (not the official meeting title) (by invitation only) http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SSISWGOA/OAevents.htm http://scurl.ac.uk/WG/SSISWGOA/OAevents.htm Edinburgh, October 11, 2004 Access 2004, Beyond Buzzwords; includes the preconference, Institutional Repositories: The Future is Now! on October 13, 9am to 5pm http://library.acadiau.ca/access2004/index.html http://library.acadiau.ca/access2004/index.html http://library.acadiau.ca/access2004/preconference.html http://library.acadiau.ca/access2004/preconference.html Halifax, October 13-16, 2004 Symposium on Open Access to Knowledge and Scholarly Communication http://www.oai.unizh.ch/ http://www.oai.unizh.ch/ Zurich, October 15, 2004 E-Research and Supporting Cyberinfrastructure: A Forum to Consider the Implications for Research Libraries and Research Institutions (sponsored by ARL and CNI) http://www.arl.org/forum04/ http://www.arl.org/forum04/ Washington, D.C., October 15, 2004 Digital Preservation in Institutional Repositories (sponsored by the Digital Preservation Coalition) http://www.dpconline.org/graphics/events/041019forum.html http://www.dpconline.org/graphics/events/041019forum.html London, October 19, 2004 Social Science Data Archives: creating, depositing and using data http://www.esds.ac.uk/news/plymouth.asp http://www.esds.ac.uk/news/plymouth.asp Plymouth, October 22, 2004 Are Chemical Journals Too Expensive and Inaccessible? (sponsored by the Chemical Sciences Roundtable) http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bcst/Agenda_Pub.pdf http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bcst/Agenda_Pub.pdf Washington, D.C., October 25-26, 2004 * Other OA-related conferences http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm ---------- Housekeeping * I've added 16 new conferences to the conference page since the last issue. In the next few days I'll delete the second asterisk marking them and the new entries will blend into the rest of the collection. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm * Atomz.com tells me that, starting on September 30, it will insert ads on the return pages for the search engine that I use for my blog and newsletter. I've run searches since then and don't see the ads, but I expect they'll show up soon. The ads will be pure text and based on the user's search string. This is a decision by Atomz and beyond my control unless I drop Atomz or decide to pay for its premium service. At least for the time being, I plan to continue with the free service. * Bloglet is down again. Bloglet is the service that provides email delivery of blog postings from Open Access News (OAN) and other blogs. OAN itself is working fine. If you count on Bloglet for email delivery of OAN postings, then my advice may seem harsh. Please stop counting on it. Bloglet is very unreliable and beyond my control. It's often down without explanation. When it's up, it often sends out corrupted emails that garble the text. When it's working as advertised, it still deletes the titles, bylines, and direct links to individual blog postings. I strongly recommend that you either read OAN on the web or read its RSS feed through a news aggregator. Meantime I'll continue to look for a reliable blog-to-email service and welcome your suggestions. Open Access News, on the web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html If you're tempted to read the blog's RSS feed, see next. * I've changed the URL for the blog's RSS feed. At the same time I've added an Atom feed. In both cases, it was to take advantage of new syndication technologies. If you subscribed to the old RSS feed, it's time to upgrade. My apologies for the inconvenience. New Atom feed for Open Access News http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/atom.xml http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/atom.xml New RSS feed for Open Access News http://feeds.feedburner.com/earlham/dGCQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/earlham/dGCQ ========== This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written by Peter Suber and published by SPARC. The views I express in this newsletter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC. To unsubscribe, send any message to < SPARC-OANews-off(a)arl.org >. Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the first two sites below. SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html http://www.arl.org/sparc/soa/index.html Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter editorial position http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm Newsletter, archived back issues http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm Forum, archived postings https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm Timeline of the Open Access Movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm Open Access Overview http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters http://www.earlham.edu/~peters peter.suber(a)earlham.edu SOAN is an open-access publication under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Users may freely copy, distribute, and display its contents, but must give credit to the author. To read the full license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/

1 0

Authors can and must retain copyright!
by Subbiah Arunachalam 02 Oct '04

02 Oct '04

Autors of research papers need not GIVE THE COPYRIGHT to the journal publishers. They can modify the copyright agreement sent to them by the publishers. They should not give away the copyright to their original work to a journal publisher. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Model language for helping authors retain key rights SPARC <http://www.arl.org/sparc/index.html> has released two draft addenda <http://www.arl.org/sparc/resources/docs/SPARCAuthorAddenda.pdf> for authors to add to their copyright transfer agreements with publishers. The addenda retain key rights for authors, enabling them to provide open access to their works without further permission. Draft 1.0 includes a Creative Commons <http://creativecommons.org/> public license, and draft 2.0 does not. SPARC welcomes public comment on them. For some background, see SPARC's page on Copyright Resources for Authors <http://www.arl.org/sparc/resources/copyres.html>. Authors can and must retain copyright! Autors of research papers need not GIVE THE COPYRIGHT to the journal publishers. They can modify the copyright agreement sent to them by the publishers. They should not give away the copyright to their original work to a journal publisher. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Model language for helping authors retain key rights SPARC < http://www.arl.org/sparc/index.html http://www.arl.org/sparc/index.html > has released two draft addenda < http://www.arl.org/sparc/resources/docs/SPARCAuthorAddenda.pdf http://www.arl.org/sparc/resources/docs/SPARCAuthorAddenda.pdf > for authors to add to their copyright transfer agreements with publishers. The addenda retain key rights for authors, enabling them to provide open access to their works without further permission. Draft 1.0 includes a Creative Commons < http://creativecommons.org/ http://creativecommons.org/ > public license, and draft 2.0 does not. SPARC welcomes public comment on them. For some background, see SPARC's page on Copyright Resources for Authors < http://www.arl.org/sparc/resources/copyres.html http://www.arl.org/sparc/resources/copyres.html > .

1 0

OA in Germany
by Subbiah Arunachalam 02 Oct '04

02 Oct '04

Friends: Here is a new German open access initiative. We should persude funding agencies in India to adopt such programmes. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] --------------------------------- More on eSciDoc Bobby Pickering, German Government funds OA initiative <http://www.iwr.co.uk/IWR/1158510>, Information World Review, October 1, 2004. Excerpt: "The German government has awarded Euro 6.1m (£4.2m) to STM publisher FIZ Karlsruhe and the Max Planck Society (MPS) to develop a platform for web-based collaborative scientific work and self-publishing. The five-year eSciDoc project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), will provide another precedent for state funding of open access initiatives when the UK government responds to the HoC's Scientific Committee report released in June. MPS is a not-for-profit research organisation that signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities last October. The eSciDoc project will enable scientists in its 80 institutes to collaborate on research and publish their results on a long-term basis in open archives developed by FIZ Karlsruhe technology teams." OA in Germany Friends: Here is a new German open access initiative. We should persude funding agencies in India to adopt such programmes. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] --------------------------------- More on eSciDoc Bobby Pickering, German Government funds OA initiative < http://www.iwr.co.uk/IWR/1158510 http://www.iwr.co.uk/IWR/1158510 > , Information World Review, October 1, 2004. Excerpt: "The German government has awarded Euro 6.1m (£4.2m) to STM publisher FIZ Karlsruhe and the Max Planck Society (MPS) to develop a platform for web-based collaborative scientific work and self-publishing. The five-year eSciDoc project, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), will provide another precedent for state funding of open access initiatives when the UK government responds to the HoC's Scientific Committee report released in June. MPS is a not-for-profit research organisation that signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities last October. The eSciDoc project will enable scientists in its 80 institutes to collaborate on research and publish their results on a long-term basis in open archives developed by FIZ Karlsruhe technology teams."

1 0

History of OA [in the past ten years]
by Subbiah Arunachalam 02 Oct '04

02 Oct '04

Friends: Here is a well-written article on the history of the Open access movement. I am sure you will find it enjoyable reading. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] ------------------------------------------ Information Today Vol. 21 No. 9 - October 2004 Poynder on Point Ten Years After By Richard Poynder The open access (OA) movement has had some big wins this year: In July, a cross-party group of British politicians called on the U.K. government to make all publicly funded research accessible to everyone "free of charge, online." That same month, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations recommended that all NIH-funded research be made freely available 6 months after publication. But where did the OA movement come from, and where is it taking us? For the genesis of the OA movement, we need to step back 10 years, to June 1994, when professor of cognitive science Stevan Harnad posted what he called a "subversive proposal" to the Electronic Journals mailing list at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Harnad's post consisted of a simple but radical proposition: Since researchers' only interest in publishing is to share their ideas with as many of their peers as possible-and they are, therefore, happy to give their papers away-the price tag of journal subscriptions not only imposes an undesirable restriction on that sharing but, in the age of the Internet, is no longer even necessary. Consequently, he concluded, researchers should immediately start self-archiving their papers on the Internet, thereby maximizing the impact of their ideas and more effectively reaching "the eyes and minds of peers, fellow esoteric scientists and scholars the world over." While most mailing list messages instantly fall into justifiable oblivion, Harnad's proposal sparked a seminal online debate (one, ironically, was later published as a book) and immediately became the de facto manifesto of the embryonic OA movement. A decade later, OA is now threatening to overturn the $6 billion scholarly publishing industry and is forcing even the largest publishers against the ropes. Earlier this year, for instance, the CEO of Reed Elsevier was obliged to appear ignominiously before British politicians to explain why he thought it acceptable for publishers to make a 34-percent profit from selling publicly funded research back to the very people who had (freely) provided it in the first place: namely, researchers and their institutions. But how did the OA movement grow from one apparently random message on a mailing list to the powerful force for change that it represents today? Not the First Of course, Harnad was not the first to see the Internet's potential for enabling new ways of sharing research. Leaving aside pre-Web luminaries like Ted Nelson and Web creator Tim Berners-Lee, physicist Paul Ginsparg had founded the Internet's first preprint service, arXiv, 3 years prior to Harnad's message. Created to allow physicists to share their ideas more quickly than the lengthy process of publication permitted, arXiv had 20,000 users by the time Harnad posted the Subversive Proposal and was receiving 35,000 hits per day. For this reason, Harnad cited arXiv as a proof of concept, although his ambitions were somewhat grander. Nor was Harnad the first to climb over the access barrier imposed by journal subscriptions. Charles Oppenheim, professor of information science at Loughborough University, points out that librarians had been "banging on about the high costs of subscribing to journals published by commercial publishers" for a long time. As these costs increased, librarians were having to cancel journals, depriving faculty of access to them. Indeed, many trace the roots of the OA movement to the growing activism of librarians who, in pursuit of remedies to the growing problem of journal price inflation, founded the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) advocacy group in 1998. But where SPARC's initial focus was on advocating for alternative, less costly journals and arXiv was a central, discipline-based repository of preprints, Harnad wanted to see the entire corpus of scholarly literature made freely available on the Internet-a goal that he believes could be best achieved by researchers continuing to publish in traditional journals, but then self-archiving their articles locally. Moreover, obsessed with making the revolution happen-and blessed with a facility for rhetoric and augmentation that few can equal-Harnad has spent the last 10 years cajoling, hectoring, haranguing, and pleading with fellow researchers and verbally battering critics into submission (or at least bruised silence). Thus, while Harnad cannot claim to have invented the OA movement, his phenomenal energy and determination, coupled with a highly focused view of what is needed, undoubtedly earns him the title of chief architect of open access. Naiveté Indeed, over the years many others have "independently discovered" the self-evident logic of OA, but few have matched Harnad's focused energy-those who have often proved to be prone to naiveté. In 1999, for example, when Nobel prize winner-and the then-director of the NIH- Harold Varmus proposed a new biomedical research literature server called E-Biomed, he appeared to assume that publishers only needed to be asked to open their content vaults to the public. Modelled on arXiv, E-Biomed was mooted as "an electronic public library of medicine and other life sciences" consisting of a comprehensive, fully searchable free repository of full-text research articles, including both preprint and post-print texts. By the time it was launched as PubMed Central in February 2000, however, the project was a pale shadow of Varmus' initial concept. Why? Because, despite widespread support from scientists, publishers and learned societies mounted an aggressive campaign of opposition to E-Biomed. As a consequence, the preprint component was eliminated and delays were introduced between article publication and posting to the archive. Moreover, since publishers routinely acquire the copyright for papers that they publish, PubMed Central relied on publisher co-operation. Due to this fact, it's no surprise that 4 years after its launch, only 161 journals (most of which are freely available elsewhere on the Web) are currently archived with PubMed Central. Varmus evidently decided that publishers needed to have their arms twisted a little. Therefore, in November 2000, he founded the Public Library of Science (PLoS) with scientists Michael Eisen and Patrick Brown. The aim was to persuade fellow scientists to sign an open letter pledging to discontinue submitting papers to any journal that refused to make the research articles it published "available through online public libraries of science such as PubMed Central" 6 months after publication. PLoS was a great cause and it attracted nearly 34,000 signatures from scientists in 180 countries. But, while a small handful of publishers complied, most blithely ignored the PLoS letter. Worse, most of the scientist signatories were happy to forswear their own petition and continued publishing in the very journals that had turned a deaf ear to their request. What Varmus and his PLoS colleagues had failed to appreciate is that most publishers would rather give their eyeteeth than cooperate in any scheme that threatens their profits. More realistically, Harnad has always tended to assume that, rather than going cap-in-hand to publishers, researchers should simply "free the refereed literature" themselves. That said, there was a naive element to the Subversive Proposal, too, since Harnad's plan would have led to researchers posting their papers on thousands of isolated FTP sites. This would have meant that anyone wanting to access the papers would have needed prior knowledge of the papers' existence and the whereabouts of every relevant archive. They would then have had to search each archive separately. Today, Harnad concedes that "anonymous FTP sites and arbitrary Web sites are more like common graves, insofar as searching is concerned." Self-Archiving Toolkit For this reason, Harnad also became an ardent advocate for the creation of a self-archiving toolkit that could provide the OA movement with the means to compete with the electronic platforms that publishers were developing as they began to offer subscription-based online access to their journals. It is no accident that many of the OA tools subsequently produced were developed at Southampton University, where Harnad moved shortly after posting the Subversive Proposal. In 2000, for instance, Southampton University's Department of Electronics and Computer Science released EPrints software. Designed to enable institutions to create interoperable archives for researchers to post their papers, EPrints software utilizes common metadata-tagging standards developed under the JISC-funded Open Archives Initiative (OAI), thereby enabling multiple distributed archives to be treated as one virtual archive. And, to enable this virtual archive to be searched, a number of OAI "Googles" were developed-most notably the University of Michigan's OAIster. By regularly harvesting records from diverse OAI-compliant repositories, OAIster aggregates the content from the entire population of OAI-compliant archives, enabling them to be cross-searched via a single search interface. Once relevant articles have been discovered, researchers can then utilize Southampton University's ParaCite service to locate the most accessible full-text version available on the Web simply by pasting a paper's abstract into the ParaCite search box and following the links. And those wanting to assess the impact of self-archived papers can use Southampton University's CiteBase, which is able to rank self-archived articles by a number of factors, including most-cited author, paper, etc. Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to such developments, publishers were engaged in an orgy of consolidation, and, today, the two largest STM publishers, Elsevier and Springer, between them control around 40 percent of the STM journal market. Growing concerns about such consolidation, however, were to provide even greater rationale for OA. OA Publishing But one publisher did see the approaching storm. Conscious that the core issue was not costs, per se, but, rather, the barrier that the traditional subscription model imposed between reader and research, Vitek Tracz, the chairman of Current Science Group, decided that rather than posing a threat to publishers, OA offered a new opportunity. By shifting costs from the reader to the author, he concluded that publishers could make research articles freely available, yet still charge for publication. In 1998, therefore, Tracz sold a number of publishing businesses to Elsevier and founded the world's first commercial OA publisher, BioMed Central (BMC). Rather than charging readers (via subscriptions) to access its journals, BMC charges authors to publish their papers. Today, BMC publishes 110 Web-only journals in the biological and medical sciences-all of which are immediately released on the Web as well as archived in PubMed Central. The OA publishing model was a novel and creative response to the growing demands from OA advocates. "The fact that Vitek Tracz put his money where his mouth is by starting BioMed Central as an open access publishing company was a major commitment to open access that hadn't been there before, and a breakthrough," says BMC publisher Jan Velterop. To have a commercial publisher embrace OA also provided a powerful credibility boost to the movement. By now conscious of the limitations of advocacy and impressed with what BMC was doing, PLoS reinvented itself in 2001 as an OA publisher and set about establishing new OA journals. Last October, PLoS Biology was launched; this month (October), the first issue of its second journal, PLoS Medicine, will be published. "Public Library of Science began as an advocacy group for the NIH archive, PubMed Central," Varmus recently explained to The Scientist. "Subsequently, it became a publishing house." However, the development of OA publishing was to sow the seeds for future discord in the movement. It was, after all, a deviation from Harnad's original concept, which had assumed that researchers would continue to use traditional journals, but then self-archive their papers. True, Harnad had anticipated that publishers might eventually need to downsize, perhaps eventually to provide peer-review services alone, but OA publishing had created a new type of journal. While this met the growing calls for all published research articles to be freely available, Harnad became increasingly concerned that it could hamper progress. In 2002, however, there was sufficient good news to paper over any potential cracks in the movement. In December, PLoS received a $9 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. More significantly, earlier in the year, philanthropist George Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI) had provided $3 million in funding for the movement, enabling the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) to be launched. In contrast to PLoS, BOAI was heavily focused on practical measures: Rather than asking people to sign a petition, it called on them to agree on "a statement of principle, a statement of strategy, and a statement of commitment." "It is clear in retrospect that most of those signing on to the PLoS boycott did so with their fingers crossed," Harnad commented to Information Today at the time. "But the BOAI is not another petition like the PLoS. Signing it does not mean that one supports the cause, or that one is asking someone else (e.g., the publishers) to do something. Signing means that one is oneself (whether individual or institution) committing to do something-either self-archiving or submitting to alternative journals or both." Moreover, with $3 million in the bank, it was now possible to make that commitment real. As Harnad pointed out to the BBC: "To start up and fill an institutional Eprint Archive costs less than $10,000; to start up and fill an alternative journal costs less than $50,000; so $3 million can do a lot of good." Importantly, the BOAI also articulated the first widely agreed definition of OA, which stipulates that OA research articles are freely available "on the public Internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the Internet itself." And since the BOAI recognized that there were now two flavors of OA, it was more than a simple restatement of the Subversive Proposal. To this end, it outlined a two-pronged strategy: BOAI-1 was the self-archiving (or green) route outlined in the Subversive Proposal; BOAI-2 was OA publishing (the gold road), as practiced by BMC and PLoS. In short, the BOAI was a defining moment. Not only did it significantly raise the public profile of the movement, but it also accelerated its progress. "When you consider that we didn't have a commonly recognized name for 'open access' before the Budapest Open Access Initiative, I think the build-up of momentum in just the past two-and-a-half years has been astonishing," says Rick Johnson, director of SPARC. Shift of Focus But, with access to substantial funds, BMC and PLoS were now better equipped than Harnad to set the OA agenda. To promote their activities, for instance, the two publishers initiated a series of "me too" declarations and manifestos that added little to what had been expressed in the BOAI, but, in Harnad's view, laid disproportionate stress on OA publishing, and downplayed self-archiving. Thus, in June 2003, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing was announced. In October 2003 came the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Unfortunately, says Harnad, while these were "all excellent PR" for OA journal publishing, they did little for the self-archiving cause. For instance, he says, there was "no mention or understanding of BOAI-1 in the Berlin Declaration." To rub salt into Harnad's wounds, when earlier this year BOAI published a breakdown of how it was spending the Soros money, it transpired that 71 percent had gone to BOAI-2 and just 29 percent to BOAI-1. But, if the aim of the OA movement is to provide unfettered access to research on the Internet, does it matter whether this is achieved via OA publishing or through self-archiving? In the short term, yes, says Harnad, since placing too much stress on OA publishing threatens to slow the adoption of OA. Firstly, the author-pays model of OA publishing has become the bogeyman of OA. With costs ranging from $525 per paper at BMC to $1,500 at PLoS, author-pays is viewed by many as a strong disincentive to embrace OA. BMC and PLoS have been keen to stress that when an author cannot afford to pay, the charge will not be levied. They insist that the intention is for publishing fees to be paid by an author's institution or funder, not by individual authors. To formalize this, they have introduced annual "membership" schemes, allowing institutions to bulk-purchase the right for their researchers to publish future articles. However, many feel this is uncomfortably similar to the widely-criticized "big deal" site licenses introduced by traditional publishers seeking to sell online access to their journals. Thus, while Tracz's innovation provided credibility to the movement, it also introduced a hairball-one that cast doubt not only on OA publishing, but also, by implication, on the entire OA movement. Clearly conscious of this, in August BMC began consulting librarians and funders over future pricing models. Harnad worries that overplaying OA publishing could retard the movement in another way. As he frequently points out, only 1,000 of the 24,000 scholarly journals are currently OA. This means that OA publishers can, at the most, only make 5 percent of the total refereed research output freely available. If, on the other hand, all researchers were to immediately begin self-archiving the papers that they publish in the 23,000 traditional journals, then 95 percent of the research output could be made OA. As Harnad puts it: "Self-archiving can provide toll-free access to all 2,500,000 annual articles in all 24,000 journals, virtually overnight." Why, then, he asked Michael Eisen in a forthright online exchange in January, is PLoS "with its considerable resources promoting only open-access publishing (BOAI-2), instead of also promoting, at least as vigorously, the other road [BOAI-1]," which would almost certainly lead to universal open access? What was apparently worrying Harnad was that the Subversive Proposal was itself being subverted. Ironically, in the early days of OA, Harnad had himself proposed the author-pays model-a flirtation with OA publishing that he now regrets as "unnecessary and a strategic mistake on my part." As he explains: "[I]t is now much clearer that OA self-archiving is not only the path to OA, but also the eventual path to OA publishing (but only after 100 percent OA itself has prevailed-through self-archiving)." Darkest Before the Dawn By now, however, it had become evident that a far bigger challenge confronted the entire OA movement-both the gold and the green varieties. It turns out that offering exciting new publishing models, developing snazzy self-archiving tools, and extolling the virtues of OA all count for nothing if the primary agents of change-the researchers themselves-simply turn a deaf ear to the call. That they are doing, Harnad conceded in July on the American Scientist Open Access Forum that he moderates: "[O]nly about 20 percent of authors are providing OA to their articles any which-way today (whether by publishing in a gold journal [5 percent], or by publishing in a green journal and self-archiving [15 percent])." In short, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. What has become "abundantly clear," concluded Harnad, is that "universities and research funders must extend their existing publish-or-perish mandate to mandate that the publications must be made OA-either by publishing them in an OA journal, wherever possible (5 percent) or publishing them in a non-OA journal (95 percent) and self-archiving them." But here it seemed was yet another mountain to climb. Persuading universities and research funders to mandate researchers to embrace OA could take another 10 years. Increasingly gloomy, Harnad treated with skepticism last December's news that the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee was conducting an inquiry into STM publishing. His skepticism only increased when-despite his filing a written submission-the committee failed to call him to testify. Moreover, as the inquiry progressed, British politicians appeared to have little interest in or understanding of self-archiving. Posting to his own mailing list in March, Harnad complained that the committee continued "to propagate this planetary tidal wave [in which open access is being equated exclusively with open access 'publishing,' instead of with open access 'provision.'" Researchers giving evidence to the inquiry confirmed the general lack of interest in OA, with most arguing that there was no need to change the current system. As David Williams, professor of tissue engineering at the University of Liverpool, told the committee: "I do not see that there is any significant problem in S&T publishing at the present time. My staff, my post-docs, my students have immense access to a wide variety of publications with tremendous facility. Comparing that to 5 years ago, the time saved in technology is very, very significant." But the darkest hour, they say, comes just before the dawn. On July 20, when the Select Committee's report was published, it was immediately apparent that British politicians had indeed understood the difference between OA publishing and self-archiving. Moreover, while expressing some caution about OA publishing, they recommended that the U.K. government create a network of institutional repositories without delay and mandate all publicly funded researchers to deposit copies of their articles in those repositories, thereby making them accessible to all "free of charge, online." A Prophet Whose Time Has Come Harnad, who was attending a conference in Barcelona, could not have wished for more. What better way of fast-tracking OA than to have the government order researchers and their institutions to adopt self-archiving? Rushing to an Internet cafe, he triumphantly e-mailed that the news "could not have been better-though it could have come 10 years earlier." But the good news did not end there. The same month, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations recommended that NIH-the largest science funder in the U.S. federal government-draw up a plan to ensure that all research articles resulting from NIH-funded research be archived in PubMed Central 6 months after publication. At the time of this writing, similar proposals are being discussed in Canada, Scotland, Australia, India, and Norway. What we are witnessing, says Harnad, is "a historic race to see which nation actually implements the recommendation first." Despite all his frustrations, it seemed that the Harnadian view of the universe had finally begun to prevail. Ten years after posting the Subversive Proposal, lacking the financial resources of international corporations like Elsevier, or the powerful PR machines at the disposal of BMC and PLoS, but possessing all the energy and commitment of a true zealot, Harnad had apparently outgunned them all. "You must feel like a prophet whose time has come!" one of Harnad's supporters e-mailed from Australia. Ultimately, of course, the OA movement is a communal endeavor, not the work of one man alone, no matter how indefatigable that man may be. After all, disgruntled as Harnad may have become over the proliferation of manifestos and declarations, these did successfully attract the attention of politicians. The truth is that for OA to gain the mindshare that it enjoys today, it has taken the efforts of many-from the inspiration of individuals like Ginsparg, Varmus, and Tracz (to name a few) to the activism of librarians and the support (and funding) provided by a growing army of well-wishers. And, of course, without the Internet the very raison d'être of open access could not exist. That said, without Harnad's focus and energy, a movement that many now believe is set to revolutionize the process of scholarly communication could still be bogged down in a bitter wrangle over journal prices. But has the war truly been won? It is, after all, possible that the U.K. government will decline to implement the recommendations of the Science and Technology Committee and the NIH proposal may also fail or be emasculated. At the time of this writing, publishers and learned societies are mounting an even more aggressive campaign than the one that they conducted against E-Biomed. Might we once again see a spanner thrown in the works? Whatever transpires, it is clear that traditional publishers can no longer ignore open access. In Part Two, I will explore in more detail how publishers are responding and pose the question: Is the self-archiving roadmap as straightforward as Harnad claims, or even sustainable? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Richard Poynder is a U.K.-based freelance journalist who specializes in intellectual property and the information industry. His e-mail address is richard.poynder(a)journalist.co.uk. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- History of OA [in the past ten years] Friends: Here is a well-written article on the history of the Open access movement. I am sure you will find it enjoyable reading. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] ------------------------------------------ Information Today Vol. 21 No. 9 - October 2004 Poynder on Point Ten Years After By Richard Poynder The open access (OA) movement has had some big wins this year: In July, a cross-party group of British politicians called on the U.K. government to make all publicly funded research accessible to everyone "free of charge, online." That same month, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations recommended that all NIH-funded research be made freely available 6 months after publication. But where did the OA movement come from, and where is it taking us? For the genesis of the OA movement, we need to step back 10 years, to June 1994, when professor of cognitive science Stevan Harnad posted what he called a "subversive proposal" to the Electronic Journals mailing list at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Harnad's post consisted of a simple but radical proposition: Since researchers' only interest in publishing is to share their ideas with as many of their peers as possible-and they are, therefore, happy to give their papers away-the price tag of journal subscriptions not only imposes an undesirable restriction on that sharing but, in the age of the Internet, is no longer even necessary. Consequently, he concluded, researchers should immediately start self-archiving their papers on the Internet, thereby maximizing the impact of their ideas and more effectively reaching "the eyes and minds of peers, fellow esoteric scientists and scholars the world over." While most mailing list messages instantly fall into justifiable oblivion, Harnad's proposal sparked a seminal online debate (one, ironically, was later published as a book) and immediately became the de facto manifesto of the embryonic OA movement. A decade later, OA is now threatening to overturn the $6 billion scholarly publishing industry and is forcing even the largest publishers against the ropes. Earlier this year, for instance, the CEO of Reed Elsevier was obliged to appear ignominiously before British politicians to explain why he thought it acceptable for publishers to make a 34-percent profit from selling publicly funded research back to the very people who had (freely) provided it in the first place: namely, researchers and their institutions. But how did the OA movement grow from one apparently random message on a mailing list to the powerful force for change that it represents today? Not the First Of course, Harnad was not the first to see the Internet's potential for enabling new ways of sharing research. Leaving aside pre-Web luminaries like Ted Nelson and Web creator Tim Berners-Lee, physicist Paul Ginsparg had founded the Internet's first preprint service, arXiv, 3 years prior to Harnad's message. Created to allow physicists to share their ideas more quickly than the lengthy process of publication permitted, arXiv had 20,000 users by the time Harnad posted the Subversive Proposal and was receiving 35,000 hits per day. For this reason, Harnad cited arXiv as a proof of concept, although his ambitions were somewhat grander. Nor was Harnad the first to climb over the access barrier imposed by journal subscriptions. Charles Oppenheim, professor of information science at Loughborough University, points out that librarians had been "banging on about the high costs of subscribing to journals published by commercial publishers" for a long time. As these costs increased, librarians were having to cancel journals, depriving faculty of access to them. Indeed, many trace the roots of the OA movement to the growing activism of librarians who, in pursuit of remedies to the growing problem of journal price inflation, founded the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) advocacy group in 1998. But where SPARC's initial focus was on advocating for alternative, less costly journals and arXiv was a central, discipline-based repository of preprints, Harnad wanted to see the entire corpus of scholarly literature made freely available on the Internet-a goal that he believes could be best achieved by researchers continuing to publish in traditional journals, but then self-archiving their articles locally. Moreover, obsessed with making the revolution happen-and blessed with a facility for rhetoric and augmentation that few can equal-Harnad has spent the last 10 years cajoling, hectoring, haranguing, and pleading with fellow researchers and verbally battering critics into submission (or at least bruised silence). Thus, while Harnad cannot claim to have invented the OA movement, his phenomenal energy and determination, coupled with a highly focused view of what is needed, undoubtedly earns him the title of chief architect of open access. Naiveté Indeed, over the years many others have "independently discovered" the self-evident logic of OA, but few have matched Harnad's focused energy-those who have often proved to be prone to naiveté. In 1999, for example, when Nobel prize winner-and the then-director of the NIH- Harold Varmus proposed a new biomedical research literature server called E-Biomed, he appeared to assume that publishers only needed to be asked to open their content vaults to the public. Modelled on arXiv, E-Biomed was mooted as "an electronic public library of medicine and other life sciences" consisting of a comprehensive, fully searchable free repository of full-text research articles, including both preprint and post-print texts. By the time it was launched as PubMed Central in February 2000, however, the project was a pale shadow of Varmus' initial concept. Why? Because, despite widespread support from scientists, publishers and learned societies mounted an aggressive campaign of opposition to E-Biomed. As a consequence, the preprint component was eliminated and delays were introduced between article publication and posting to the archive. Moreover, since publishers routinely acquire the copyright for papers that they publish, PubMed Central relied on publisher co-operation. Due to this fact, it's no surprise that 4 years after its launch, only 161 journals (most of which are freely available elsewhere on the Web) are currently archived with PubMed Central. Varmus evidently decided that publishers needed to have their arms twisted a little. Therefore, in November 2000, he founded the Public Library of Science (PLoS) with scientists Michael Eisen and Patrick Brown. The aim was to persuade fellow scientists to sign an open letter pledging to discontinue submitting papers to any journal that refused to make the research articles it published "available through online public libraries of science such as PubMed Central" 6 months after publication. PLoS was a great cause and it attracted nearly 34,000 signatures from scientists in 180 countries. But, while a small handful of publishers complied, most blithely ignored the PLoS letter. Worse, most of the scientist signatories were happy to forswear their own petition and continued publishing in the very journals that had turned a deaf ear to their request. What Varmus and his PLoS colleagues had failed to appreciate is that most publishers would rather give their eyeteeth than cooperate in any scheme that threatens their profits. More realistically, Harnad has always tended to assume that, rather than going cap-in-hand to publishers, researchers should simply "free the refereed literature" themselves. That said, there was a naive element to the Subversive Proposal, too, since Harnad's plan would have led to researchers posting their papers on thousands of isolated FTP sites. This would have meant that anyone wanting to access the papers would have needed prior knowledge of the papers' existence and the whereabouts of every relevant archive. They would then have had to search each archive separately. Today, Harnad concedes that "anonymous FTP sites and arbitrary Web sites are more like common graves, insofar as searching is concerned." Self-Archiving Toolkit For this reason, Harnad also became an ardent advocate for the creation of a self-archiving toolkit that could provide the OA movement with the means to compete with the electronic platforms that publishers were developing as they began to offer subscription-based online access to their journals. It is no accident that many of the OA tools subsequently produced were developed at Southampton University, where Harnad moved shortly after posting the Subversive Proposal. In 2000, for instance, Southampton University's Department of Electronics and Computer Science released EPrints software. Designed to enable institutions to create interoperable archives for researchers to post their papers, EPrints software utilizes common metadata-tagging standards developed under the JISC-funded Open Archives Initiative (OAI), thereby enabling multiple distributed archives to be treated as one virtual archive. And, to enable this virtual archive to be searched, a number of OAI "Googles" were developed-most notably the University of Michigan's OAIster. By regularly harvesting records from diverse OAI-compliant repositories, OAIster aggregates the content from the entire population of OAI-compliant archives, enabling them to be cross-searched via a single search interface. Once relevant articles have been discovered, researchers can then utilize Southampton University's ParaCite service to locate the most accessible full-text version available on the Web simply by pasting a paper's abstract into the ParaCite search box and following the links. And those wanting to assess the impact of self-archived papers can use Southampton University's CiteBase, which is able to rank self-archived articles by a number of factors, including most-cited author, paper, etc. Meanwhile, apparently oblivious to such developments, publishers were engaged in an orgy of consolidation, and, today, the two largest STM publishers, Elsevier and Springer, between them control around 40 percent of the STM journal market. Growing concerns about such consolidation, however, were to provide even greater rationale for OA. OA Publishing But one publisher did see the approaching storm. Conscious that the core issue was not costs, per se, but, rather, the barrier that the traditional subscription model imposed between reader and research, Vitek Tracz, the chairman of Current Science Group, decided that rather than posing a threat to publishers, OA offered a new opportunity. By shifting costs from the reader to the author, he concluded that publishers could make research articles freely available, yet still charge for publication. In 1998, therefore, Tracz sold a number of publishing businesses to Elsevier and founded the world's first commercial OA publisher, BioMed Central (BMC). Rather than charging readers (via subscriptions) to access its journals, BMC charges authors to publish their papers. Today, BMC publishes 110 Web-only journals in the biological and medical sciences-all of which are immediately released on the Web as well as archived in PubMed Central. The OA publishing model was a novel and creative response to the growing demands from OA advocates. "The fact that Vitek Tracz put his money where his mouth is by starting BioMed Central as an open access publishing company was a major commitment to open access that hadn't been there before, and a breakthrough," says BMC publisher Jan Velterop. To have a commercial publisher embrace OA also provided a powerful credibility boost to the movement. By now conscious of the limitations of advocacy and impressed with what BMC was doing, PLoS reinvented itself in 2001 as an OA publisher and set about establishing new OA journals. Last October, PLoS Biology was launched; this month (October), the first issue of its second journal, PLoS Medicine, will be published. "Public Library of Science began as an advocacy group for the NIH archive, PubMed Central," Varmus recently explained to The Scientist. "Subsequently, it became a publishing house." However, the development of OA publishing was to sow the seeds for future discord in the movement. It was, after all, a deviation from Harnad's original concept, which had assumed that researchers would continue to use traditional journals, but then self-archive their papers. True, Harnad had anticipated that publishers might eventually need to downsize, perhaps eventually to provide peer-review services alone, but OA publishing had created a new type of journal. While this met the growing calls for all published research articles to be freely available, Harnad became increasingly concerned that it could hamper progress. In 2002, however, there was sufficient good news to paper over any potential cracks in the movement. In December, PLoS received a $9 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. More significantly, earlier in the year, philanthropist George Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI) had provided $3 million in funding for the movement, enabling the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) to be launched. In contrast to PLoS, BOAI was heavily focused on practical measures: Rather than asking people to sign a petition, it called on them to agree on "a statement of principle, a statement of strategy, and a statement of commitment." "It is clear in retrospect that most of those signing on to the PLoS boycott did so with their fingers crossed," Harnad commented to Information Today at the time. "But the BOAI is not another petition like the PLoS. Signing it does not mean that one supports the cause, or that one is asking someone else (e.g., the publishers) to do something. Signing means that one is oneself (whether individual or institution) committing to do something-either self-archiving or submitting to alternative journals or both." Moreover, with $3 million in the bank, it was now possible to make that commitment real. As Harnad pointed out to the BBC: "To start up and fill an institutional Eprint Archive costs less than $10,000; to start up and fill an alternative journal costs less than $50,000; so $3 million can do a lot of good." Importantly, the BOAI also articulated the first widely agreed definition of OA, which stipulates that OA research articles are freely available "on the public Internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the Internet itself." And since the BOAI recognized that there were now two flavors of OA, it was more than a simple restatement of the Subversive Proposal. To this end, it outlined a two-pronged strategy: BOAI-1 was the self-archiving (or green) route outlined in the Subversive Proposal; BOAI-2 was OA publishing (the gold road), as practiced by BMC and PLoS. In short, the BOAI was a defining moment. Not only did it significantly raise the public profile of the movement, but it also accelerated its progress. "When you consider that we didn't have a commonly recognized name for 'open access' before the Budapest Open Access Initiative, I think the build-up of momentum in just the past two-and-a-half years has been astonishing," says Rick Johnson, director of SPARC. Shift of Focus But, with access to substantial funds, BMC and PLoS were now better equipped than Harnad to set the OA agenda. To promote their activities, for instance, the two publishers initiated a series of "me too" declarations and manifestos that added little to what had been expressed in the BOAI, but, in Harnad's view, laid disproportionate stress on OA publishing, and downplayed self-archiving. Thus, in June 2003, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing was announced. In October 2003 came the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Unfortunately, says Harnad, while these were "all excellent PR" for OA journal publishing, they did little for the self-archiving cause. For instance, he says, there was "no mention or understanding of BOAI-1 in the Berlin Declaration." To rub salt into Harnad's wounds, when earlier this year BOAI published a breakdown of how it was spending the Soros money, it transpired that 71 percent had gone to BOAI-2 and just 29 percent to BOAI-1. But, if the aim of the OA movement is to provide unfettered access to research on the Internet, does it matter whether this is achieved via OA publishing or through self-archiving? In the short term, yes, says Harnad, since placing too much stress on OA publishing threatens to slow the adoption of OA. Firstly, the author-pays model of OA publishing has become the bogeyman of OA. With costs ranging from $525 per paper at BMC to $1,500 at PLoS, author-pays is viewed by many as a strong disincentive to embrace OA. BMC and PLoS have been keen to stress that when an author cannot afford to pay, the charge will not be levied. They insist that the intention is for publishing fees to be paid by an author's institution or funder, not by individual authors. To formalize this, they have introduced annual "membership" schemes, allowing institutions to bulk-purchase the right for their researchers to publish future articles. However, many feel this is uncomfortably similar to the widely-criticized "big deal" site licenses introduced by traditional publishers seeking to sell online access to their journals. Thus, while Tracz's innovation provided credibility to the movement, it also introduced a hairball-one that cast doubt not only on OA publishing, but also, by implication, on the entire OA movement. Clearly conscious of this, in August BMC began consulting librarians and funders over future pricing models. Harnad worries that overplaying OA publishing could retard the movement in another way. As he frequently points out, only 1,000 of the 24,000 scholarly journals are currently OA. This means that OA publishers can, at the most, only make 5 percent of the total refereed research output freely available. If, on the other hand, all researchers were to immediately begin self-archiving the papers that they publish in the 23,000 traditional journals, then 95 percent of the research output could be made OA. As Harnad puts it: "Self-archiving can provide toll-free access to all 2,500,000 annual articles in all 24,000 journals, virtually overnight." Why, then, he asked Michael Eisen in a forthright online exchange in January, is PLoS "with its considerable resources promoting only open-access publishing (BOAI-2), instead of also promoting, at least as vigorously, the other road [BOAI-1]," which would almost certainly lead to universal open access? What was apparently worrying Harnad was that the Subversive Proposal was itself being subverted. Ironically, in the early days of OA, Harnad had himself proposed the author-pays model-a flirtation with OA publishing that he now regrets as "unnecessary and a strategic mistake on my part." As he explains: "[I]t is now much clearer that OA self-archiving is not only the path to OA, but also the eventual path to OA publishing (but only after 100 percent OA itself has prevailed-through self-archiving)." Darkest Before the Dawn By now, however, it had become evident that a far bigger challenge confronted the entire OA movement-both the gold and the green varieties. It turns out that offering exciting new publishing models, developing snazzy self-archiving tools, and extolling the virtues of OA all count for nothing if the primary agents of change-the researchers themselves-simply turn a deaf ear to the call. That they are doing, Harnad conceded in July on the American Scientist Open Access Forum that he moderates: "[O]nly about 20 percent of authors are providing OA to their articles any which-way today (whether by publishing in a gold journal [5 percent], or by publishing in a green journal and self-archiving [15 percent])." In short, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. What has become "abundantly clear," concluded Harnad, is that "universities and research funders must extend their existing publish-or-perish mandate to mandate that the publications must be made OA-either by publishing them in an OA journal, wherever possible (5 percent) or publishing them in a non-OA journal (95 percent) and self-archiving them." But here it seemed was yet another mountain to climb. Persuading universities and research funders to mandate researchers to embrace OA could take another 10 years. Increasingly gloomy, Harnad treated with skepticism last December's news that the U.K. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee was conducting an inquiry into STM publishing. His skepticism only increased when-despite his filing a written submission-the committee failed to call him to testify. Moreover, as the inquiry progressed, British politicians appeared to have little interest in or understanding of self-archiving. Posting to his own mailing list in March, Harnad complained that the committee continued "to propagate this planetary tidal wave [in which open access is being equated exclusively with open access 'publishing,' instead of with open access 'provision.'" Researchers giving evidence to the inquiry confirmed the general lack of interest in OA, with most arguing that there was no need to change the current system. As David Williams, professor of tissue engineering at the University of Liverpool, told the committee: "I do not see that there is any significant problem in S&T publishing at the present time. My staff, my post-docs, my students have immense access to a wide variety of publications with tremendous facility. Comparing that to 5 years ago, the time saved in technology is very, very significant." But the darkest hour, they say, comes just before the dawn. On July 20, when the Select Committee's report was published, it was immediately apparent that British politicians had indeed understood the difference between OA publishing and self-archiving. Moreover, while expressing some caution about OA publishing, they recommended that the U.K. government create a network of institutional repositories without delay and mandate all publicly funded researchers to deposit copies of their articles in those repositories, thereby making them accessible to all "free of charge, online." A Prophet Whose Time Has Come Harnad, who was attending a conference in Barcelona, could not have wished for more. What better way of fast-tracking OA than to have the government order researchers and their institutions to adopt self-archiving? Rushing to an Internet cafe, he triumphantly e-mailed that the news "could not have been better-though it could have come 10 years earlier." But the good news did not end there. The same month, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations recommended that NIH-the largest science funder in the U.S. federal government-draw up a plan to ensure that all research articles resulting from NIH-funded research be archived in PubMed Central 6 months after publication. At the time of this writing, similar proposals are being discussed in Canada, Scotland, Australia, India, and Norway. What we are witnessing, says Harnad, is "a historic race to see which nation actually implements the recommendation first." Despite all his frustrations, it seemed that the Harnadian view of the universe had finally begun to prevail. Ten years after posting the Subversive Proposal, lacking the financial resources of international corporations like Elsevier, or the powerful PR machines at the disposal of BMC and PLoS, but possessing all the energy and commitment of a true zealot, Harnad had apparently outgunned them all. "You must feel like a prophet whose time has come!" one of Harnad's supporters e-mailed from Australia. Ultimately, of course, the OA movement is a communal endeavor, not the work of one man alone, no matter how indefatigable that man may be. After all, disgruntled as Harnad may have become over the proliferation of manifestos and declarations, these did successfully attract the attention of politicians. The truth is that for OA to gain the mindshare that it enjoys today, it has taken the efforts of many-from the inspiration of individuals like Ginsparg, Varmus, and Tracz (to name a few) to the activism of librarians and the support (and funding) provided by a growing army of well-wishers. And, of course, without the Internet the very raison d'être of open access could not exist. That said, without Harnad's focus and energy, a movement that many now believe is set to revolutionize the process of scholarly communication could still be bogged down in a bitter wrangle over journal prices. But has the war truly been won? It is, after all, possible that the U.K. government will decline to implement the recommendations of the Science and Technology Committee and the NIH proposal may also fail or be emasculated. At the time of this writing, publishers and learned societies are mounting an even more aggressive campaign than the one that they conducted against E-Biomed. Might we once again see a spanner thrown in the works? Whatever transpires, it is clear that traditional publishers can no longer ignore open access. In Part Two, I will explore in more detail how publishers are responding and pose the question: Is the self-archiving roadmap as straightforward as Harnad claims, or even sustainable? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Poynder is a U.K.-based freelance journalist who specializes in intellectual property and the information industry. His e-mail address is richard.poynder(a)journalist.co.uk. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Open Access Institutional Archives for India
by Subbiah Arunachalam 02 Oct '04

02 Oct '04

Friends: Here is a comment by Peter Suber applauding the US NIH mandatory self-archiving plan and Stevan Harnad's response to it - actually suggesting that NIH should mandate self-archiving in the authors' own institutional archives. This appears to be something funding agencies in India [such as DST, DBT, DAE, CSIR, UGC] could follow. Now there are at least half a dozen studies showing that papers in the open access regime are cited far more often than papers in the toll-access regime. And, as has been pointed out by OA advocates, institutional archiving has many benefits apart from improving the visibility of the scientists and their work. Many of you might be interested in seeing Richard Poynder's 10-year history of the Open Access movement that has just appeared today in Information Today: http://www.infotoday.com/IT/oct04/poynder.shtml Best wishes. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Peter Suber has written an excellent FAQ on the House Appropriations Committee/NIH mandatory self-archiving plan: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm The FAQ is clear, comprehensive and on-target. I highly recommend it to anyone who is having any difficulty understanding the House/NIH recommendations. There is only one point on which I would disagree. Peter's FAQ says: Why PubMed Central [PMC]? PMC is maintained by the NIH; it already houses a very large body of medical literature; it has benefited from years of infrastructure refinements; it is committed to open access, long-term preservation, and interoperability. Some publishers object to the use of PMC and would like to see Congress allow grantees to put the literature elsewhere, either in multiple repositories or in any repository that meets certain conditions. If the report language were amended to meet these objections, open access would not suffer. At the same time, however, the high quality of PMC makes such amendments unnecessary. Peter is right that if the report were amended to allow grantees to deposit in any OAI-compliant archive, open access *to those papers* would not suffer. He is also right that this amendment would not be a *necessary* one. But such an amendment would make the recommendation a far *better* one. For it would generate far more Open Access (OA), in more disciplines and institutions, and sooner, if PMC were not stipulated as the mandatory locus of the self-archiving, only that the self-archiving must be done in an OAI-compliant OA Archive, preferably the author's own institutional OA Archive. The reason is that: (1) the self-archiving practice is far more likely to generalize to other disciplines at the same university if it is done at that university than if it is only done in PMC; (2) for functionality and quality the physical locus of the full-text makes no difference at all, as long as it is in an OAI-compliant OA Archive; (3) all OAI-compliant OA Archives (including PMC) are equivalent and interoperable; (4) the metadata of all OAI-complaint OA Archives are harvestable, hence they could be harvested into PMC too, if that was desired; (5) even the full-texts could be harvested into PMC, if that was desired; (6) PMC could (and should) be available as a backup locus for self-archiving for any grantee whose university does not yet have an OAI-compliant OA Archive. Another (very minor) reason for institutional rather than central self-archiving is that many of the 86% of journals that have already given their green light to author self-archiving have stipulated self-archiving at the author's own institution (so that their green light should not be legally construable as sanctioning 3rd-party free-riding by rival publishers). The publishers' worry is silly, but mandating PMC self-archiving just makes it into a further needless obstacle. http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php So it is not just publishers who "would like to see Congress allow grantees to put the literature elsewhere": It is also those OA advocates (like myself) who hope to see the House/NIH self-archiving mandate's effect propagate far beyond just the NIH-funded biomedical research papers to all of OA, in all fields. "In a study in the UK which we have just completed for the Joint Information Systems Committee, JISC (a brief account of which will, referees permitting, be published in a forthcoming special issue of Serials Review), after quite exhaustive review of all aspects of e-prints archiving, we recommended a "harvesting model", in which full texts (and other digital objects) remain at distributed institutional (and other) archives, but metadata is harvested and processed centrally." --- Fytton Rowland http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3909.html See also: "Central vs. Distributed Archives" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0293.html "Central versus institutional self-archiving" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3206.html Stevan Harnad Open Access Institutional Archives for India Friends: Here is a comment by Peter Suber applauding the US NIH mandatory self-archiving plan and Stevan Harnad's response to it - actually suggesting that NIH should mandate self-archiving in the authors' own institutional archives. This appears to be something funding agencies in India [such as DST, DBT, DAE, CSIR, UGC] could follow. Now there are at least half a dozen studies showing that papers in the open access regime are cited far more often than papers in the toll-access regime. And, as has been pointed out by OA advocates, institutional archiving has many benefits apart from improving the visibility of the scientists and their work. Many of you might be interested in seeing Richard Poynder's 10-year history of the Open Access movement that has just appeared today in Information Today: http://www.infotoday.com/IT/oct04/poynder.shtml http://www.infotoday.com/IT/oct04/poynder.shtml Best wishes. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Peter Suber has written an excellent FAQ on the House Appropriations Committee/NIH mandatory self-archiving plan: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm The FAQ is clear, comprehensive and on-target. I highly recommend it to anyone who is having any difficulty understanding the House/NIH recommendations. There is only one point on which I would disagree. Peter's FAQ says: Why PubMed Central [PMC]? PMC is maintained by the NIH; it already houses a very large body of medical literature; it has benefited from years of infrastructure refinements; it is committed to open access, long-term preservation, and interoperability. Some publishers object to the use of PMC and would like to see Congress allow grantees to put the literature elsewhere, either in multiple repositories or in any repository that meets certain conditions. If the report language were amended to meet these objections, open access would not suffer. At the same time, however, the high quality of PMC makes such amendments unnecessary. Peter is right that if the report were amended to allow grantees to deposit in any OAI-compliant archive, open access *to those papers* would not suffer. He is also right that this amendment would not be a *necessary* one. But such an amendment would make the recommendation a far *better* one. For it would generate far more Open Access (OA), in more disciplines and institutions, and sooner, if PMC were not stipulated as the mandatory locus of the self-archiving, only that the self-archiving must be done in an OAI-compliant OA Archive, preferably the author's own institutional OA Archive. The reason is that: (1) the self-archiving practice is far more likely to generalize to other disciplines at the same university if it is done at that university than if it is only done in PMC; (2) for functionality and quality the physical locus of the full-text makes no difference at all, as long as it is in an OAI-compliant OA Archive; (3) all OAI-compliant OA Archives (including PMC) are equivalent and interoperable; (4) the metadata of all OAI-complaint OA Archives are harvestable, hence they could be harvested into PMC too, if that was desired; (5) even the full-texts could be harvested into PMC, if that was desired; (6) PMC could (and should) be available as a backup locus for self-archiving for any grantee whose university does not yet have an OAI-compliant OA Archive. Another (very minor) reason for institutional rather than central self-archiving is that many of the 86% of journals that have already given their green light to author self-archiving have stipulated self-archiving at the author's own institution (so that their green light should not be legally construable as sanctioning 3rd-party free-riding by rival publishers). The publishers' worry is silly, but mandating PMC self-archiving just makes it into a further needless obstacle. http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php So it is not just publishers who "would like to see Congress allow grantees to put the literature elsewhere": It is also those OA advocates (like myself) who hope to see the House/NIH self-archiving mandate's effect propagate far beyond just the NIH-funded biomedical research papers to all of OA, in all fields. "In a study in the UK which we have just completed for the Joint Information Systems Committee, JISC (a brief account of which will, referees permitting, be published in a forthcoming special issue of Serials Review), after quite exhaustive review of all aspects of e-prints archiving, we recommended a "harvesting model", in which full texts (and other digital objects) remain at distributed institutional (and other) archives, but metadata is harvested and processed centrally." --- Fytton Rowland http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3909.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3909.html See also: "Central vs. Distributed Archives" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0293.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0293.html "Central versus institutional self-archiving" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3206.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3206.html Stevan Harnad

1 0

Jump to page: