News from the open access movementJump to navigation
Jan Velterop, "To be useful, it must be open," Research Information, Spring 2003, pp. 10-11. A succinct statement of the case for open access and the BioMed Central business model for supporting it --in a print journal with no online access to articles even for subscribers. Excerpts:
Wide dissemination and visibility are the most important things for scientists. They would be happy for their articles to be photocopied or attached to e-mails and brought to the attention of everyone interested. Restriction of circulation is the last thing they want.Jan Velterop is the publisher of BioMed Central.
Nancy Kranich, The Impact of the USA PATRIOT Act on Free Expression. From the Free Expression Policy Project. (Thanks to Terry Foreman.)
More on piracy from the public domain....A new bill before the Canadian Parliament would give a 20 year retroactive copyright term extension to a certain category of posthumously published work. The bill may be named the Lucy Maud Montgomery Copyright Term Extension Act, because Montgomery's unpublished diaries are among the works to be affected by the bill. (Montgomery is the author of the Ann of Green Gables novels.) A draft of the bill was open for public comment until March 7 of this year. (Thanks to BNA's Internet Law News.)
The May issue of First Monday is now online. It is devoted to selected papers from the Fourth Annual Conference on Libraries and Museums in the Digital World (February 26-28, 2003).
Last month, the Royal Society released an important report, Keeping science open: the effects of intellectual property policy on the conduct of science. Excerpts: "Intellectual property rights (IPRs) can stimulate innovation by protecting creative work and investment, and by encouraging the ordered exploitation of scientific discoveries for the good of society. Although IPRs can aid the conversion of good science to tangible benefits, the fact that they are monopolies can cause a tension between private profit and public good. Not least, they can hinder the free exchange of ideas and information on which science thrives....Advances of technology and commercial forces have led to new IP legislation and case law that unreasonably and unnecessarily restrict freedom to access and to use information. This restriction of the commons in the main IP areas of patents, copyright and database right has changed the balance of rights and hampers scientific endeavour. In the interests of society, that balance must be rectified." (Thanks to the Internet Resources Newsletter.)
Open Education (a grassroots organization advocating for open educational content) recently interviewed Professor Lawrence Lessig. These days, Lessig is shifting his attention away from the court and towards educating the public: "Losing in the court means that we have to do a lot more in the public space. We have to do a lot more work in convincing people of the importance of this."
Today's Fox News has a story on library resistance to the Patriot Act and the prospects for Rep. Bernie Sanders' Freedom to Read Protection Act.
A "viewpoint" commentary of mine is now openly accessible online. The citation is: Till JE, Success Factors for Open Access, Journal of Medical Internet Research 2003;5(1):e1. An example of an "incentive model" for fostering open access is proposed, where an agency or foundation that provides peer-reviewed grants-in-aid to researchers establishes an e-print archive.
Linda Watson, Ivan Login, and Jeffrey Burns, Exploring new ways of publishing: a library-faculty partnership, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 2 (April 2003) pp. 245–247. A case study from the University of Virginia's Claude Moore Health Sciences Library (CMHSL) to educate faculty about the advantages of submitting their research papers to open-access journals, like those from BioMed Central, and having them archived in open-access archives, like PubMed Central. This is the first detailed case study of its kind that I've seen, describing both librarian strategies and faculty reactions. Congratulations to the CMHSL librarians for their initiative and vision!
Sandra De Groote and Josephine Dorsch, Measuring use patterns of online journals and databases, Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 2 (April 2003) pp. 231–241. From the abstract: "Users prefer online resources to print, and many choose to access these online resources remotely. Convenience and full-text availability appear to play roles in selecting online resources. The findings of this study suggest that databases without links to full text and online journal collections without links from bibliographic databases will have lower use. These findings have implications for collection development, promotion of library resources, and end-user training." (Thanks to ResourceShelf.)
More on the Ohio bill that would bar some state-subsidized free information....Barbara Quint sounds the alarm in the May 5 Information Today.
Tony Delamothe, Fiona Godlee, and Richard Smith, Scientific literature's open sesame? BMJ, 326 (May 3, 2003) pp. 945-946. An important editorial from an important journal, advocating open access. Excerpts:
How could you make the results of the world's original biomedical research freely available to anyone who wanted them? This question remained hypothetical until the arrival of the world wide web, which allows distribution of material at only a fraction of the cost of distribution on paper. But publishing peer reviewed original research has some costs that the internet cannot magic away. Recently, a way to meet those costs has become clear. The goal of original research being free to everybody everywhere could be very close. [...]
This could be remedied if funding bodies earmarked just a few per cent of their research grants to cover article processing charges, recognising the costs of dissemination as a legitimate component of the total costs of research....Funders could go one step further and make open access publication a condition of funding. [...]
Surprisingly, another obstacle to the acceptance of the new model is likely to be academic institutions. While sharing the funding agencies' goal of achieving the widest possible dissemination of research findings, their reliance on journal impact factors as a surrogate for the quality of research protects the status quo.The online editorial links to a growing list of reader responses.
More on the threat to ERIC....There is a new site for activists working to save ERIC, appropriately called SAVE ERIC. It's anonymous but seems to be the work of Robert M. Hayes, Professor Emeritus at UCLA, and Principal Investigator of the Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship Education. (Thanks to InfoBits.)
Robert N. Diotalevi, An Education in ©opyright Law: A Primer for Cyberspace, Libres, March 2003. A thorough and detailed primar for academics, covering everything from the basic rules to the complexity of fair use and recent changes created by the DMCA and TEACH Act.
The May 1, 2003 edition of Marian Dworaczek's Subject Index to Literature on Electronic Sources of Information is now online.