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

Maximising visibility of OA journal articles
by Mailing List Manager 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:53:52 +0530 From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun(a)mssrf.res.in> Friends: How can we best alert would be readers to research papers published in journals and are free to access? Please read what a concerned American librarian has to say. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] ---- When scholarly peer reviewed open access articles are imbedded in random issues or are random journal issues, there must be a means of systematically identifying them. If it is approaching 60% in some journals as Dr. Walker notes in his post, to the American Scientist Open Access Forum of yesterday, then the need for a standardized systems becomes critical. OPEN URL resolvers are a standard for navigation in many academic libraries-can we use them to send users to these articles-? Scientific World maintains a list of its open access articles. <http://www.thescientificworld.com/TSWPubs/Journal/openaccessarticles.asp> <<http://www.thescientificworld.com/TSWPubs/Journal/openaccessarticles.asp>> The free access 2004 issue of Nucleic Acids Research-annual database issue from OUP is noted on the journal's splash page at Highwire. The 2004 issues says free at each article, the 2003 issue which is also free, does not. The Entomological Society states "free pdf" on individual articles American Society of Limnology and Oceanography has an "unlocked" padlock icon. BMC has an icon on individual articles that says "free" . If author paid open access becomes standard, it can happen rapidly in fields that already have page charge and reprint traditions, then identification also must be standardized. OAI harvesters aren't currently sufficient. Some suggestions from talking with Dr. Herbert Van De Sompel of LANL: Publishers could expose these articles, with their data, to OAI harvesters which could feed the data to linking servers. He also suggested information could be included in a metadata tag, ie access=open (which could be used on an open URL) Other issues: Are these articles and issues also being deposited in OAI archives by publishers? Shouldn't they be? Is there some other unique identifying system that can be computed, reduced to a formula to be plugged into open url resolvers? I am not aware of a standard identifier for permanently free content in traditional journals? I assume individual publishers using unique marking systems internally-can those be used to configure resolvers? They will have something in their systems that says "free" How does that get guaranteed over time? What if publishers for a title change? Isn't that another reason to deposit these also in OAI systems? If users can't systematically identify which articles are free (my library bias) they will be underutilized, won't be identified as open access in standard sources (ISI or Compendex for instance) and could become orphaned. One of the 5 basic principles of librarianship from Ranganathan is: "Save the Time of the Reader." That is imperative. Free and easy and organized-predictable access all have to come together to guarantee that! Chuck Hamaker Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services Atkins Library University of North Carolina Charlotte Charlotte, NC 28223 phone 704 687-2825

1 0

OA and impact factor
by Mailing List Manager 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:42:44 +0530 From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun(a)mssrf.res.in> Friends: Here is Stevan Harnad's clear exposition of impact factor in the era of open access. Hope you find it interesting. Arun [Subbiah Arunachalam] Rick Anderson asked: [I]sn't open access simply making the impact-factor data less meaningful? ...given two articles of equal merit and potential influence, one of which is freely available to the public and the other of which is only available to those who pay, wouldn't we expect that the impact of the former would be higher than that of the latter? And if so, how is the difference between those two impact factors meaningful or useful? Stevan Harnad's reply: The reason researchers publish their research ("publish or perish") rather than just putting it into a desk-drawer and moving on to do the next piece of research is so that it will be used, so that it makes a contribution to knowledge, so it makes a difference. This is research impact, of which citation counts are one correlate, hence predictor. Findings that cannot be accessed by all their would-be users are findings that cannot have their full potential research impact. The purpose of open access is to maximise the visibility, usage and hence the impact of research. To maximise the visibility, usage and impact of one's own research by providing open access to it is not to make the impact factor less meaningful or more meaningful. It is to maximize the impact of one's own research, just as publishing it at all was done in order to make it visible and usable, so the work can have its impact rather than remaining still-born, done in vain. Today, most journal articles are toll-access (TA), hence impact-limited, rather open-access (OA). How do we get there (universal OA) from here (restricted access)? By providing OA to one's own articles. Yes, of course, in the unlikely event that two articles are of exactly equal merit, and one is TA and the other OA, the OA article will have more users. That's the point! And the remedy for this momentary imbalance is that the OA should be provided for the other article too, and then access to both will be be maximized, and merit alone will again rule. The race is to the swift. Once all articles are OA, their impacts will all be rescaled upward, because all articles will have maximized impact. Until then, the OA article will have an extra edge over the TA article. Let that serve as another incentive to provide OA as swiftly as possible! A word about "journal impact factors," though: As David Goodman and Jean-Claude Guedon pointed out, these are merely average citation counts for the articles in a journal. That's a blunt instrument. The sharper instrument is the article's own citation count (and the author's, and the download count, which is an early-days measure, and highly correlated with, hence predictive of, later citation counts). <http://citebase.eprints.org/> <http://citebase.eprints.org/analysis/correlation.php> OA will not only give us a far richer array of impact indicators, but it will put the focus on the individual article's merit, rather than only on the average merit of the articles in the journal it was published in. (Do not, however, underestimate the predictive value of the journal name itself, for the journal is the peer-review service-provider, and its track record for the average quality of its articles is also an indicator of its acceptance standards. There are 24,000 journals, differing not only in field, but in peer-review standards and selectivity; there is usually a journal hierarchy of merit within each field. This filter is not to be sneezed at either.) Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35 (April 2003). <http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/> Harnad, Stevan (2003) Measuring and Maximising UK Research Impact. Times Higher Education Supplement. Friday, June 6 2003. <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/thes.html> Harnad, Stevan (2003) Maximising Research Impact Through Self-Archiving. <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm> Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004) is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum: To join the Forum: <http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum. html> Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-forum(a)amsci.org </ym/Compose?To=american-scientist-open-access-forum(a)amsci.org&YY=77206&orde r=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b> Hypermail Archive: <http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html> Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy: BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal whenever one exists. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm> BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it. <http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/> <http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml> <http://www.eprints.org/signup/>

1 0

RE: LIS-Forum Digest, Vol 12, Issue 10
by Mailing List Manager 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:17:28 +0530 From: Jeetender "Vicky" Chandna <vicky(a)irft.org> Dr Krishnan Could you please return the hyperlink (in plain text)to the article sent in by you. Dear Friends In relation to fairness and giving us a chance to visit the originating, I sincerely hope that links to articles be posted on the discussion group rather than whole copying of the articles. Senders may make a critique on the topic and add a link to it, otherwise it does seem from the signature at the bottom of the article, that the sender has written the article. This is standard practice at most discussion groups around the world. Now, as an advocate of Open Source Policies, I personally believe that much has to be discussed and done in relation to open source in this corner of the world. Principally, I do not consider the moment to be a myth as indicated by the article. The amount of $1500 does seem to be inordinately high. Whatever amount is paid to the peer reviewers can be pooled by a common fund created by the whole world. Each nation paying a Open Source Tax (OST) with correlates to the GDP of that nation. Not only will such a revolution benefit mankind at large, but will also render information free from all fetters. Regards Jeetender "Vicky" Chandna Coordinator Information Systems ------------------------------------------ INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES FOR FAIRER TRADE Sona Udyog Industrial Estate Unit No.7, Parsi Panchayat Road Andheri (E), Mumbai 400069 INDIA ------------------------------------------ Tel: (91-22) 2835 2811 / 2823 5246 Fax: (91-22) 2823 5245 Email: vicky(a)irft.org Website: http://www.irft.org ------------------------------------------

1 0

NewGenLib report in Hindu
by Mailing List Manager 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:35:30 +0000 (GMT) From: "[iso-8859-1] Prof. N. Laxman Rao." <naglaxman(a)yahoo.com> Dear professional friends, please look at new library management software namely NEW GENLIB. Mr Haravu is assoicated with this project and it is a product of Keshavan Institute (a social organisation). u may see the details of the software at www.newgenlib.com Even a report on NewGenLib appeared in 9 Mar 2004 The Hindu and the same report is also on the web. The url is: http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/03/09/stories/2004030916150300.htm Best regards. laxman rao ===== Prof.N.LAXMAN RAO, Dept.of Library & Information Science, Osmania University, HYDERABAD- 500 007 (INDIA) President, Indian Association of Teachers in Library and Information Science (IATLIS). Ph:+91-40-27171565 (res): +91-40- 27682290 (off) 040-56547599 (Mobile) e:mail-- naglaxman(a)yahoo.com OR naglaxman(a)indiatimes.com

1 0

Forwarded mail....
by Mailing List Manager 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 14:48:06 +0530 From: Subbiah Arunachalam <arun(a)mssrf.res.in> Friends: Yahoo! is helping the cause of Open Access. Please read what Yahoo! and the University of Michigan are doing. I received this through another discussion list. Arun A repository of information that provides links to previously difficult-to-locate electronic scholarly resources is widely available under a new agreement between the University of Michigan and Yahoo! Inc. The repository -- developed through Michigan's University Library OAIster Project -- is now available through Yahoo!'s Content Acquisition Program (CAP) and accessible through Yahoo! Search. OAIster offers information that links to hidden digital resources such as the complete contents of books and articles, technical reports, preprints (unpublished works that have not yet been peer reviewed), white papers, images of paintings, movies and audio files of speeches. OAIster retrieves these elusive resources by tapping directly into the collections of a variety of institutions using harvesting technology based on the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Protocol for Metadata Harvesting. The U-M's OAIster service provides access to over 3 million harvested records describing and pointing to these resources. Currently, the resources are created and hosted by 267 research libraries and institutions from around the world. Many of the scholarly collections included in OAIster were not previously indexed in popular Web search services and remained hidden from those who need the resources for their research. By enabling access through Yahoo!'s CAP program, these materials will be widely available to an international audience of scholars, students, researchers and enthusiasts. OAIster provides a direct link to an actual digital object-an image, book, document-not just a catalog or descriptive information. Examples of some of the collections currently available through OAIster include: the arXiv.org Eprint Archive (an archive of physics research); Carnegie Mellon University Informedia Public Domain Video Archive; Ethnologue: Languages of the World; Library of Congress American Memory Project; and Caltech Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory Technical Reports. CAP enables Yahoo! Search to expand the breadth and depth of content users can access. In addition to the OAIster project, other participants in CAP include National Public Radio, Northwestern University, the Library of Congress, The New York Public Library, Project Gutenberg, UCLA and the National Science Digital Library. For more information about Michigan's OAIster Project, visit <http://www.oaister.org>, or contact Katrina Hagedorn at khage(a)umich.edu. For more information about Yahoo! Search or the Content Acquisitions Program, contact Sumir Meghani of Yahoo! Inc. at sumir(a)yahoo-inc.com .You can view the press release at: <http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Mar04/r031004> ------------------- Kat Hagedorn OAIster/Metadata Harvesting Librarian DLXS Bibliographic Class Coordinator DLXS Text Class Co-coordinator Digital Library Production Service University of Michigan <http://www.oaister.org/> <http://www.dlxs.org/> email: khage(a)umich.edu

1 0

ISBN Standard Revision
by Mailing List Manager 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Date: 13 Mar 2004 08:59:36 -0000 From: Sharad Jadhav <email2sharad(a)rediffmail.com> Dear Members, ISBN Standard Revision The Guidelines for the Implementation of 13 Digit ISBNs Major changes to be aware of, and addressed by the guidelines, include the following: 1. The ISBN will change from 10 to 13 digits on 1 January 2007 2. Existing ISBNs will be prefixed by 978 3. The resulting 13-digit number will be identical with the EAN-13 number that is currently encoded in the bar code 4. The 979 prefix will be introduced when the current stock of numbers is exhausted 5. Publishers' identifier prefixes are not likely to remain the same for ISBNs using the 979 prefix 6. Bar codes will carry the 13-digit ISBN with hyphenation above the barcode and the EAN-13, the identical number without hyphens or spaces, below the bar code. More information is available on http://www.isbn-international.org/revision.html Sharad Jadhav Librarian Maharashtra Academy of Naval Education And Training, MIT Campus, Paud Rd.,Pune 411038 MS Homepage : http://www.geocities.com/sharad7703 sharad1977(a)indiatimes.com

1 0

editiorial from C&E News
by Mailing List Manager 12 Mar '04

12 Mar '04

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:06:37 +0530 From: Krishnan <krish(a)ems.ncl.res.in> Editorial from C&E News makes interesting reading! The Open-Access Myth HYPERLINK "http://pubs.acs.org/cen/staff/biorb.html"RUDY M. BAUM Editor-in-chief Much has changed in scientific, technical, and medical (STM) publishing = in the past decade. New electronic methods of delivery and of searching and accessing the STM literature have combined with ferocious pressure on library budgets to create a whole new STM publishing environment. It is = an environment that challenges everyone involved in this important activity = to think hard about where it's going and what shape we want it to take. One response to developments in STM primary and secondary publishing is = the "open access" movement. Starting primarily among the West Coast biology = and biomedical research communities in the late 1990s, open-access advocates have pressed a variety of demands on STM publishers. Those demands have = one common theme: that access to the STM literature at some point becomes = free to the public. "At some point" variously has been defined as six months after publication, one year after publication, or immediately.=20 Open access is predicated on an obvious truth and a dangerous myth. The obvious truth is that most of the research published in the STM = literature is supported by public funding. Therefore, open-access advocates claim, = the research should be freely available to the public that funds it. At first blush, the argument seems reasonable. The dangerous, usually unspoken, myth that makes the argument seem reasonable is this: STM publishers add little value to the research they publish and therefore should not charge institutions for subscriptions to the electronic = versions of their journals, or, at the very least, they should provide open = access to the public a short time after publication. One of the most visible manifestations of the open-access movement is = the HYPERLINK "http://www.plos.org"Public Library of Science (PLoS), which describes itself as "a nonprofit organization of scientists and = physicians committed to making the world's scientific and medical literature a = public resource." That sounds noble, but it implies that the STM literature = isn't already a public resource, which is debatable. PLoS has already launched one open-access journal, PLoS Biology, and = plans to launch another, PLoS Medicine, later this year. PLoS acknowledges on = its website that it does, in fact, cost something to publish a journal, but argues that the current practice of charging for subscriptions and site licenses is "expensive and cumbersome and can involve complex = negotiations ... and, of course, many institutions simply cannot afford these = licenses. Open access solves all of these problems." PLoS's business model is to charge a fee of $1,500 per paper to authors = to cover the costs of publishing. Whether $1,500 per paper is a reasonable assessment of the cost of publishing a peer-reviewed research paper is = open to question. And it's not clear to me what advantage is conferred by shifting the cost of publishing from libraries to researchers. Most of = us thought the elimination of page charges was a good thing. Not = surprisingly, the PLoS model has raised other issues, such as what to do about = authors, like those in developing countries, who can't afford the charge. Interestingly, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences just released the results of a survey of 610 corresponding authors on open = access [101, 5 (2004)]. Only half of the respondents were willing to pay a fee = to provide open access, and of those, 80% said $500 was the most they would pay. STM publishing faces many challenges. Prices charged by some commercial publishers are way too high. However, the marketplace is responding to = those high prices in a predictable way as libraries make hard choices and = cancel subscriptions. The open-access movement's demand that an entirely new = and unproven model for STM publishing be adopted is not in the best = interests of science. It's human nature to want something for nothing. Unfortunately, = excellence rarely comes without a price. Perhaps that's the most dangerous myth = being fostered by the open-access movement: that access to high-quality STM literature can be had on the cheap. Dr. S. Krishnan Head, Information Division National Chemical Lab, PUNE 411008, INDIA e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:krish@ems.ncl.res.in"krish(a)ems.ncl.res.in HYPERLINK "http://www.ncl-india.org"http://www.ncl-india.org Tel: 020-25893457; Fax: 020-25893973

1 0

New and Old Articles About Open Access / Open Archives
by Mailing List Manager 11 Mar '04

11 Mar '04

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 15:46:21 -0600 From: Gerry Mckiernan <gerrymck(a)iastate.edu> I am pleased to announce the publication and availability of the last and final part in my series on Open Archives Initiative Service Providers: "Open Archives Initiative Service Providers. Part III: General," Library Hi Tech News 21 (1) (January/February 2004): 38-46. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/OAI-SP-III.pdf In this part, I profile: CILEA Open Archives Platform http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00000518/ ePrints UK http://www.rdn.ac.uk/projects/eprints-uk/ NDLTD Union Catalog (Electronic Thesis/Dissertation OAI Union Catalog bases At OCLC) http://rocky.dlib.vt.edu/~etdunion/search.html OAIster http://www.oaister.org Public Knowledge Project Archives Harvester http://www.pkp.ubc.ca/harvester/ **************************************************************************** I am also pleased to announce the availability of previously published articles that profile Open Access and the Open Archives resources and services: "arXiv.org: The Los Alamos National Laboratory e-Print Server," International Journal on Grey Literature 1 (3) (2000): 127-138. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/arXiv.org.pdf ABSTRACT Since its creation nearly ten years ago, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) e-print service (arXiv.org) has revolutionized scholarly communication within many scientific communities. It has also inspired the development of alternatives to conventional and electronic journal publication in a variety of other disciplines. The LANL e-print database is also serving as the core collection for two major investigations that seek to enhance access and navigation within and between electronic archives and special collections. NOTE: The arXiv.org is now based at Cornell University. http://www.arXiv.org **************************************************************************** "Perspectives in Electronic Publishing: An Open Access-Dynamic-Virtual Electronic Journal, " Library Hi Tech News, 18(9) (October 2001): 19-27. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/PeP.pdf ABSTRACT Perspectives in Electronic Publishing (http://aims.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ pep.nsf/) is a "new model e-journal" that covers a broad range of topics relating to electronic networked publishing, with an emphasis on academic publishing and journals. In addition, PeP includes publications that discuss a wide range of scientific, technological and humanistic disciplines in the context of electronic publishing." As characterized by its editor, Stephen M. Hitchcock, Perspectives in Electronic Publishing (PeP), is a "distributed linkbase journal" and an "evaluated journal with full-text papers distributed on the Web." PeP may also be considered a review journal in that it provides critical assessments of major aspects and components. journal in that it provides selected extracts from source publication. In that it provides summaries and indexing of its primary and secondary content, it may also be considered an abstractingand indexing service. Alternatively, PePmay be viewed as a "vertically integrated portal", a resource discovery tool, or a subject-based information gateway ("What is PeP?", n.d.). In that its core content - open access full-text publications - is not original to the journal but incorporated within it, PeP may also be viewed as a "virtual e-journal http://aims.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pep.nsf ************************************************************************** "RePEc: An Open Library for Economics," Library Hi Tech News 18(3) (April 2001): 21-31. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/RePEc.pdf >From the RePEc perspective, a discipline can be viewed a set of four basic elements that are related to each other: paper, collection, person, and institution. Using a distinct ReDIF template for each of these elements, RePEc offers a centralized catalog of records for working papers, journal articles, and software components (paper); journals and working paper series (collection); authors of papers or editors of collections (person); and the names of organizations that conduct economics research (institution). http://www.repec.org **************************************************************************** Regards, /Gerry Gerry McKiernan Previously Published Librarian Iowa State University Ames IA 50011 gerrymck(a)iastate.edu "You should never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and liberty." Henrik Ibsen (1828 - 1906)

1 0

Re: [LIS-Forum] Classification numbers in WWW
by Mailing List Manager 10 Mar '04

10 Mar '04

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:55:09 +0000 (GMT) From: "[iso-8859-1] Saiful Amin" <saifulamin(a)yahoo.com> Hi, The Library of Congress catalogue (http://catalog.loc.gov/) is a good source for getting class numbers of LC and DDC. Another importance source which we use is Books in Print (http://www.globalbooksinprint.com) However, this is available only on paid subscription. But the problem is these are good source for only international books. Indian books, especially of vernacular languages, are not represented in these sources. I understand that the National Library of India is currently automating their catalogue records in MARC21 format to build a Z39.50 server. Once this is in place we would be saved a lot of duplication of effort in cataloguing and classification, provided the class numbers and other tags are assigned carefully. Let us wait and watch. With best wishes, Saiful -- Saiful Amin Learning Resource Center Indian School of Business Gachibowli Hyderabad - 500019 Ph. +91-40-2318-7963/7965 Mailing List Manager wrote: > Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 15:15:54 +0530 > > From: Samdarshi Pali <Samdarshi.Pali(a)relianceinfo.com> > > > > Dear Satish > > > > Many libraries published their catalogues on Internet. > > These OPAC contains complete metadata including > > class numbers (most according to DDC or LOC) > > for their collections in MARC format. > > Try to collect information /class numbers > > from these sites. > > > > regards, > > > > Samdarshi Pali > > Kendriya Vihar > > Sector 11, Kharghar, > > Navi Mumbai 410210 > > > > Original Message > > ---------------- > > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:18:52 -0800 > > From: Satish Munnolli <smunnolli(a)actrec.res.in> > > > > Dear members, > > > > Classification of books is one of the basic activity of any library. > > Does anyone has the information of a site where in you give the title of a > > book and get the tentative or nearest class number(s) of standard > > classification systems in tabular format or series. The input is not > > necessarily the exact book title... even PMEST of the title. (Dr. > > Ranganathan's scheme). If it is available it will be of immense use for > > all classifiers. > > > > Because it's not possible for smaller to medium sized libraries to procure > > every updated edition of Classification schedules what they are following > > which are very expensive and above all it ease the work load of library > > staff. > > > > If not such site is available does anyone has the information on any > > project that is going on in this direction. > > > > Satish S. Munnolli ________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. Go to: http://in.insurance.yahoo.com/licspecial/index.html

1 0

Fwd: Methodology for estimating cost per article at an institution
by Mailing List Manager 09 Mar '04

09 Mar '04

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 05:24:39 +0000 (GMT) From: "[iso-8859-1] MALLIKARJUNA, C" <hbmallikarjuna(a)yahoo.co.in> Phil Davis <pmd8(a)cornell.edu> wrote:From: Phil Davis To: liblicense-l(a)lists.yale.edu Subject: Methodology for estimating cost per article at an institution Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:24:13 EST Scott Plutchak, Ann Okerson and others have started some constructive dialog by comparing subscription vs. producer (author) payments at their own institutions. So librarians can begin to calculate these figures for their own institution, I have provided a methodology for estimating these figures below. The two most challenging tasks are 1) estimating the total article output of an institution in the absence of a single comprehensive index, and 2) correcting for articles that have authors from multiple institutions. Below is an example methodology. While I can imagine before even posting this, receiving a number of responses trying to pick holes in the weakness of the methodology, I ask those individuals in response to propose a correction or simpler model (Occam's Razor). ESTIMATING THE ARTICLE COVERAGE OF ISI Number of titles indexed by ISI (SCI, SSCI, AHCI) = 8,769 Estimate of the number of scholarly journals = 20,000 This means that ISI is only indexing 44% of journals; however, not all journals publish the same number of articles per year and ISI attempts to index the most prolific core journals. If we assume a logarithmic (skewed) distribution, these 44% of indexed journals represent nearly 92% of the number of articles published (i.e. log 8,769 / log 20,000). CORRECTING FOR MULTIPLE-AUTHOR ARTICLES Number of Cornell author "hits" in ISI for 2003 = 5,465 However, many of these articles have multiple authors from multiple institutions. If we assume that the first author would pay all publishing charges (this is the BMC model, and it seems more reasonable than splitting $525 among 100 authors of a high-energy physics article), then how many of the above "hits" represents first author-articles? ISI displays only the first 500 records and makes it difficult to get an absolute count. We need to resort to sampling. I took a distributed sample of 100 articles (the first and last article on each page of results), and found that 61 (of the 100) included a Cornellian as a first author. Therefore the % first author hits = 61% (do this calculation for your own institution). The estimate of article output by first authors at Cornell = 5,465 x 0.61 = 3,636 ESTIMATING THE COST PER ARTICLE IF AN INSTITUTION MOVED TO AN OPEN ACCESS MODEL Scenario 1. The entire industry swaps from a subscription model to an open-access model overnight, and all authors publish in open-access journals. The breakeven cost/article = total article output of an institution / total amount spent on purchasing journals. For Cornell, this number is about $1,100/article Scenario 2. The entire industry except Elsevier moves from a subscription to OA model. The library still purchases Elsevier journals and authors still publish in them. Calculate the number of articles published in Elsevier journals in 2003 by searching for your institution in Science Direct advanced journal search for affiliation. Correct for multiple authors. Remove money spent on Elsevier journals and number of articles published in Elsevier journals and recalculate the cost/article. For Cornell, this number is under $800/article. In other words, OA has to cost less than $800/article for the model to start saving money. Scenario 3. Same is 2 but assume all large publishers will not participate (Kluwer, Wiley, Springer). For Cornell, the cost/article is less than $400/article. The reason that the cost per article would need to be much lower in Scenario 1 and 2 is because the large commercial publishers take up a disproportionate amount of a libraries funds compared to the number of articles published in these journals. For example, the Elsevier ratio is 43% / 16%. Philip Davis, Life Sciences Bibliographer Mann Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 (607) 255-7192 ; (607) 255-0318 fax pmd8(a)cornell.edu http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pmd8/ C.MALLIKARJUNA, ISEC LIBRARY, INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE NAGARABHAVI BANGALORE-560 079. hbmallikarjuna(a)yahoo.co.in Office:080+3215468 EXT-301 Mobile:080+36757228 Yahoo! India Insurance Special: Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more. --0-1197097960-1078809879=:60659 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Phil Davis <pmd8(a)cornell.edu></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">From: Phil Davis <PMD8(a)CORNELL.EDU><BR>To: liblicense-l(a)lists.yale.edu<BR>Subject: Methodology for estimating cost per article at an institution<BR>Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 21:24:13 EST<BR><BR>Scott Plutchak, Ann Okerson and others have started some constructive<BR>dialog by comparing subscription vs. producer (author) payments at their<BR>own institutions. So librarians can begin to calculate these figures for<BR>their own institution, I have provided a methodology for estimating these<BR>figures below. The two most challenging tasks are 1) estimating the total<BR>article output of an institution in the absence of a single comprehensive<BR>index, and 2) correcting for articles that have authors from multiple<BR>institutions. Below is an example methodology. While I can imagine<BR>before even posting this, receiving a number of responses trying to pick<BR>holes in the weakness o! f the methodology, I ask those individuals in<BR>response to propose a correction or simpler model (Occam's Razor).<BR><BR><BR>ESTIMATING THE ARTICLE COVERAGE OF ISI<BR><BR>Number of titles indexed by ISI (SCI, SSCI, AHCI) = 8,769<BR>Estimate of the number of scholarly journals = 20,000<BR><BR>This means that ISI is only indexing 44% of journals; however, not all<BR>journals publish the same number of articles per year and ISI attempts to<BR>index the most prolific core journals. If we assume a logarithmic<BR>(skewed) distribution, these 44% of indexed journals represent nearly 92%<BR>of the number of articles published (i.e. log 8,769 / log 20,000).<BR><BR><BR>CORRECTING FOR MULTIPLE-AUTHOR ARTICLES<BR><BR>Number of Cornell author "hits" in ISI for 2003 = 5,465<BR><BR>However, many of these articles have multiple authors from multiple<BR>institutions. If we assume that the first author would pay all publishing<BR>charges (this is the BMC model, and it seems more reasonable than<BR>splitting $525 among 100 authors of a high-energy physics article), then<BR>how many of the above "hits" represents first author-articles?<BR><BR>ISI displays only the first 500 records and makes it difficult to get an<BR>absolute count. We need to resort to sampling. I took a distributed<BR>sample of 100 articles (the first and last article on each page of<BR>results), and found that 61 (of the 100) included a Cornellian as a first<BR>author. Therefore the % first author hits = 61% (do this calculation for<BR>your own institution).<BR><BR>The estimate of article output by first authors at Cornell = 5,465 x 0.61<BR>= 3,636<BR><BR><BR>ESTIMATING THE COST PER ARTICLE IF AN INSTITUTION MOVED TO AN OPEN ACCESS<BR>MODEL<BR><BR>Scenario 1. The entire industry swaps from a subscription model to an<BR>open-access model overnight, and all authors publish in open-access<BR>journals. The breakeven cost/article = total article output of an<BR>institution / total amount spent on purchasing journals. For Cornell,<BR>this number is about $1,100/article<BR><BR>Scenario 2. The entire industry except Elsevier moves from a subscription<BR>to OA model. The library still purchases Elsevier journals and authors<BR>still publish in them. Calculate the number of articles published in<BR>Elsevier journals in 2003 by searching for your institution in Science<BR>Direct advanced journal search for affiliation. Correct for multiple<BR>authors. Remove money spent on Elsevier journals and number of articles<BR>published in Elsevier journals and recalculate the cost/article. For<BR>Cornell, this number is under $800/article. In other words, OA has to<BR>cost less than $800/article for the model to start saving money.<BR><BR>Scenario 3. Same is 2 but assume all large publishers will not<BR>participate (Kluwer, Wiley, Springer). For Cornell, the cost/article is<BR>less than $400/article. The reason that the cost per article would need<BR>to be much lower in Scenario 1 ! and 2 is because the large commercial<BR>publishers take up a disproportionate amount of a libraries funds compared<BR>to the number of articles published in these journals. For example, the<BR>Elsevier ratio is 43% / 16%.<BR><BR>Philip Davis, Life Sciences Bibliographer<BR>Mann Library, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853<BR>(607) 255-7192 ; (607) 255-0318 fax<BR>pmd8(a)cornell.edu<BR>http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pmd8/<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR><DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>C.MALLIKARJUNA,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>ISEC LIBRARY,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>NAGARABHAVI</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>BANGALORE-560 079.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><A href="mailto:hbmallikarjuna@yahoo.co.in">hbmallikarjuna(a)yahoo.co.in</A></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>Office:080+3215468 EXT-301 </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>Mobile:080+36757228</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><p><font face=arial size=-1> <a href="http://in.rd.yahoo.com/specials/mailtag/*http://in.insurance.yahoo.com/lics…" target="_blank"><b>Yahoo! India Insurance Special</a>:</b> Be informed on the best policies, services, tools and more.</font> --0-1197097960-1078809879=:60659--

1 0