Open Access News

Here are some excerpts from its predictions for next year: 'Google Scholar...will take a bite out of traditional aggregation models. It will also grease the skids for the open access movement in scholarly publishing....Experimentation will continue in open access, driven by funding shifts, new alliances, and technology innovation à la Google Scholar. The concept of open access has caught the attention of the mainstream press, but there are many flavors of open access, and many flavors of change, so this will continue to be an area to watch for dramatic experimentation and innovation. We caution, however, that some of the innovation and experimentation is substantive while some is just window dressing. For example, we believe the "author pays" model of open access will not carry the day. Look for three things in particular: [1] Research funding organizations will throw their weight around. The National Institutes of Health is rolling out new policies that require the research it funds to be freely available. [2] Funding organizations will align with scientific societies. Scientific societies want to support open access but risk losing essential subscription revenues if open access catches on. However, their mission is often directly aligned with some of the public and non-profit institutions that underwrite much of the research that is done. If these two blocks of players can align and scratch each other's backs, both will win. [3] Back in the game. In the face of pressures from multiple directions, the major commercial scientific publishers such as Elsevier and Springer are finally jumping into the fray with some reasonably serious experimentation of their own.' (PS: These excerpts are from an Outsell mailing not yet online at its web site. If it moves online in the future, I'll add a link.)

Here are some English-language excerpts from the GDCh statement on OA, reprinted in the sidebar to Gölitz's editorial. The statement is skeptical but constructive and doesn't begin to justify Gölitz's deep misunderstandings of OA journals. 'Open access is an interesting and important topic in the discussions on the future of scientific publishing. However, at this point in time there are still risks, open questions, and challenges associated with this model. Further experience must be gained in open access, or indeed any other new models, before a balanced opinion can be made regarding the advantages of these approaches over the traditional processes. The Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker (German Chemical Society, GDCh) will monitor future developments closely and will be open to results from discussions on this issue. The GDCh will participate actively and constructively in such discussions to ensure that any transitions in scientific publishing are carried out fairly so that the needs of all those involved are met and that business models are adopted to reflect the new electronic publishing tools. Regardless of the open access debate, the GDCh appeals to all its members to avoid submission of their scientific papers to overpriced journals.'

* Astrophysics * Cosmic Rays and Gamma Astronomy * Interstellar Matter * Heliospheric Physics * Solar and Stellar Physics * Planets, Comets, Asteroids and Dust * Extrasolar Planets * Magnetospheric Physics * Scientific Instrumentation

Update. Tuesday's broadcast of NPR's All Things Considered included a Michele Norris interview with Carol Brey-Casiano, president of the American Library Association, on the Google library project.

(PS: This is significant for several reasons. First, Southampton has absorbed the costs of its repository into its own budget and will no longer rely on external funding. That is a key step in recognizing that sharing university research is part of the mission of a university. Second, the Southampton repository is now a commitment, not just an experiment, and a university-wide project, not just the project of a few individuals or departments. Finally, Southampton has set an example for other institutions. Installing a repository is not enough. An institution must make a commitment to fill it. Only then is the respository useful to the institution and to researchers worldwide. Kudos to Southampton and all who helped develop the new policy.)

• Harvard University Library
• New York Public Library
• Oxford University Library
• Stanford University Libraries
• University of Michigan Library

• Bonita Wilson, The Growth of Digital Content
• Tony Hammond and two co-authors, The Role of RSS in Science Publishing: Syndication and Annotation on the Web
• Herbert Van de Sompel and three co-authors, Resource Harvesting within the OAI-PMH Framework
• Richard Jones, Tapir (Theses Alive Plugin for Institutional Repositories)

(PS: This is full of misunderstandings. CC licenses *give* authorization. When there are restrictions on the permission to use the content, CC licenses make them very clear, clearer than any standard licenses and certainly clearer than DRM. There's no reason why CC couldn't work on a "large scale". If the point is that not every rights holder wants a CC license, that's a given; but CC licenses can serve everyone who only wants some rights reserved. Money is not the difference; CC licenses are entirely compatible with earning money from content. It's true that CC licenses lack a monitoring mechanism, if this means an automated monitor. But CC authors turn to CC precisely to avoid the kind of automated monitors represented by DRM. Besides, the lack of a monitor does not harm most CC authors, who have decided --in Tim O'Reilly's words-- that invisibility is worse than infringement. A better title would be George Carlin's line: if you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten.)

Why is Harvard considering doing the larger project with Google? [PS: Harvard is currently letting Google digitize 40,000 volumes in pilot project. The larger project could encompass Harvard's 15 million volumes.]

The larger project has the promise of enormous benefit to the Harvard community, the larger scholarly community, and the general public. For users outside of Harvard, the larger project would make accessible the full text of a large number of public-domain books. It would also make the copyrighted portion of the Harvard collection searchable. Including works from the vast Harvard library collection in an information location tool available on the Internet would greatly expand the scope and quality of information available to a worldwide audience of knowledge-seekers.

What are the main challenges for CABI in the future?

AP: Technology will continue to push us forward. The ongoing migration from print to electronic will continue to be a challenge and we have to manage that process. Customers will not pay twice for the same material. Because of changes in scholarly communication, a huge challenge is finding the information and giving access to it. The open-access model presents new challenges because we usually have to go out and search for new open-access publications. Today we find out about new journals by regularly looking at the Directory of Open Access Journals website. Open-access publishers should not just assume that because their information is out there it will be found. We try to educate publishers as well as end-users. And we cannot ignore the Google factor. It is not going away. We would rather work with them than compete.

I'm a librarian. How can I get Google to come and scan my library?

Sorry, but we're not expanding our relationships with libraries at this time. However, we may expand to add additional libraries in the future. If you're interested in letting us know about your library's special collection, please email us at print-support@google.com and include the size of your collection, any specialization or special content, how much of your content is already digital, and what languages you cover.

The pdf files are made available for downloading only for academic purposes.

To publish and disseminate scientifically rigorous public health information of international significance that enables policy-makers, researchers and practitioners to be more effective and improves health, particularly among disadvantaged populations.

Update. Also see the Slashdot discussion. (Thanks to Matt Cockerill.)