Open Access News

Skull Base is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes original articles containing clinical and experimental information of use to the practicing skull base surgeon. The journal draws from the expertise of Anatomy, Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Neuro-Opthalmology, Neuro-Radiology, Neurosurgery, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and Plastic Surgery. Highlighting new technologies and surgical innovations in clinical studies, the journal publishes results and significant problem cases. Peer-reviewed articles include original contributions, reviews, case reports and clinical problems relative to the skull base from all medical surgical disciplines.

Skull Base - Fulltext v13 (2003) [additional years forthcoming]; Print ISSN: 1531-5010 | Online ISSN: 1532-0065.

• Frank Arnold, Access controls on bmj.com: Where's the evidence for restricting access?. Excerpt: 'Proponents of access controls for the electronic version of the BMJ based this policy on several grounds: that it was required for economic reasons (affordability); it would produce revenue (profitability); and it would not have serious adverse consequences for doctors or patients (harmlessness). Each of these statements is contentious. Now that restrictive practices have been put in place, they can be and should be subjected to a fair test. This is worth doing because the data may help to inform wider debates about open access to scientific and professional journals. In effect, the BMJ is conducting a social experiment, and we would be foolish not to examine the results.' Arnold then cites evidence against all three BMJ contentions.
• Gunther Eysenbach, Access controls on bmj.com: Dual models are possible. Excerpt: 'Further to Chalmer's letter asking that true open access be restored to bmj.com, it is possible to make revenue (and be self sustainable) by having a complete open access policy and still having paying subscribers and members. In open source software such a dual business model is common. You can get the operating system Linux for free, but you can also buy it from a vendor, including some value added services. The journal I have been publishing since 1999, the Journal of Medical Internet Research, has such a model....Every article is freely available on the web, but we also offer value added services for personal or institutional members (subscribers), who pay a nominal fee to get additional services such as the ability to download whole issues as PDF files or to download topical collections of articles as electronic books ("eCollections"). We think that with this model and a "lean publishing" strategy (most processes are supported by open source software, requiring only 1.5 inhouse employees to run the journal) we may well be the first sustainable open access journal—other than journals such as CMAJ, PLoS, BMC, etc, which either have large grants or subsidies or are making huge losses.'
• Gavin Yamey and Andy Gass, Prevailing publishing system is irrevocably broken. Excerpt: 'A group of researchers in Indonesia searches the online literature in preparation for a research project. Exorbitant journal subscription and download fees put the articles they need out of their reach. The director of the Wellcome Trust tries to read the results of an African study that the charity funded and is astonished to find that his access to the relevant article is denied. Libraries the world over, held hostage by commercial publishers who have had a monopoly over authors' work, are cancelling subscriptions to many journals, faced with annual price increases substantially above inflation. Patients who altruistically volunteered to be in trials, and who funded the studies with their own taxes, must battle to make the results freely available. Could this really be the "better system" of publishing that [Jeffrey] Aronson describes --a system in which the results of the global research enterprise are a commodity, owned by publishers and sold to those who can afford access, instead of being a global public good?...Open access "zealots" simply recognise the profound benefits that all of us would enjoy if our living treasury of scientific and medical knowledge were freely accessible from any networked computer in the world.'

Same authors, Communication and re-use of chemical information in bioscience, also a preprint. Abstract: 'The current methods of publishing chemical information in bioscience articles are analysed. Using 3 papers as use-cases, it is shown that conventional methods using human procedures, including cut-and-paste are time-consuming and introduce errors. The meaning of chemical terms and the identity of compounds is often ambiguous. valuable experimental data such as spectra and computational results are almost always omitted. We describe an Open XML architecture at proof-of-concept which addresses these concerns. Compounds are identified through explicit connection tables or links to persistent Open resources such as PubChem. It is argued that if publishers adopt these tools and protocols, then the quality and quantity of chemical information available to bioscientists will increase and the authors, publishers and readers will find the process cost-effective.'

'Situation. [1] ACS/CAS has expressed concern that PubChem is a threat to the financial survival of the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS). PubChem provides free access to its database; CAS charges a fee for researchers to use its database. ACS has demanded that NIH shut down PubChem or substantially alter it so as not to compete with CAS. [2] NIH met with ACS officials to seek a solution that would resolve the society's concern. Since the initial meeting, there have been multiple communications between NIH and ACS leadership. ACS has effectively broken off discussions, leaving the issues unresolved. NIH is willing to continue discussions with ACS/CAS to benefit the scientific community and biomedical research. For example, NIH has said it is willing to link to the CAS database, essentially providing CAS with access to a new market. Medical researchers infrequently use CAS at this time. [3] Opposition to PubChem is from the ACS leadership. It is not clear if ACS members are aware of the issue and if they would agree with the ACS leadership's position. [4] NIH staff analysis shows that PubChem and CAS overlap relatively little in terms of content.'

Jan adds this comment: 'Elsewhere, Eugene Garfield has been quoted as saying: "It is remarkable that the same society that accepted millions of dollars in grants from the NSF for establishing the chemical registry system, now objects to the government's use of the data."'

• Jörgen Eriksson, More content in the institutional repository. Abstract: 'Lund University has no policies on electronic publishing or self-archiving. Neither does the university require any kind of annual standardized or centralized publication lists from faculties or departments. Electronic publishing and self-archiving is a very decentralized affair where departments or divisions make their own decisions. To increase the use of LU:research, the central university archive, and make more full text dissertations available. The Library Head Office is working both towards the university administration to get policy decisions and towards the researchers to get their publications into the repository. In this project we wanted to reach new researchers and try to get their attention by giving them a very specific offer to self-archive named articles for them.'
• Jostein Helland Hauge, Norway is opening up to Open Access. Abstract: 'During the last few years we have seen in Norway a steadily growing interest in the new scientific communication strategies epitomized by the Open Access (OA) movement. It is interesting to notice that in Norway, like in most other countries, libraries have been the ones that have taken up the cudgels for OA and developed services in the field as a natural extension of their electronic services. Together the universities and colleges have formed a joint OA development group. Two of the main aims are to develop and apply a standard set of metadata and get in place an OAI harvester for all Norwegian materials that are hosted in the repositories of the institutions.'
• Mathias Klang, Creative Commons Meets Open Access. Abstract: 'The copyright system allows the creator to establish and legally defend ownership rights in intangible creations. The author does not own the tangible expression (e.g. the book) but she does have property rights in its contents. Permission to use is often granted under certain conditions (for example economic remuneration or limitations to extent of use). Obtaining permission can be a complex affair since there are several barriers on the way. In an effort to remove some of these barriers the Creative Commons (CC) project was launched in 2001. Taking inspiration in part from the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License the first project of the CC's was the release of a set of copyright licenses free for public use.'

• Victoria Shelton, Scientific Research: The Publication Dilemma. Abstract: 'The article presents a concise overview of key concepts and current issues that are useful in understanding the open access movement.'
• Edward M. Corrado, The Importance of Open Access, Open Source, and Open Standards for Libraries. Abstract: 'The open access, open source software, and open standards concepts have been garnering increased attention in the field of librarianship and elsewhere. These concepts and their benefits and importance to libraries are examined. Benefits include lower costs, greater accessibility, and better prospects for long-term preservation of scholarly works.'
• Lalitha Kumari, Global Access To Indian Research: Indian STM Journals Online. Abstract: 'India has built up a strong research and development base in both the governmental and private sectors in all areas of science and technology. This has led to an impressive quantity of research publications. But the Indian scientific community has noted with great concern that Indian research findings, especially those reported in Indian journals, are underrepresented in the global knowledge base. This is a concern not only of India but of other developing nations as well. A global effort is underway to make scientific information affordable by bypassing the profit-making commercial scientific journal publishers. Using the Internet creates the possibility of establishing alternative models for the dissemination of information. The above problems may be addressed by facilitating free access to scientific information in electronic form to users worldwide. In India, many science, technology, and medical journals are now available online for a global audience through the initiatives of governmental and private non-profit publishers. This article outlines these international efforts briefly with a special focus on Indian initiatives.'

(PS: Kudos to the Wellcome Trust. It's the world's largest research funder, public or private, willing to mandate OA to the results of the research it funds. The reasons it has given for this policy apply to all funders of non-classified research. I hope its leadership will help funding agencies worldwide to recognize their interest in using open access to increase the visibility, utility, and impact of their research.)

I learned about this development from MedGadget. But instead of just citing it in thanks, let me quote from it at length. 'AMNews is a publication of news and opinions of the AMA related to public policy issues. To find out why the decision was made, our very own Dr.O, member of the AMA, contacted Linda Smith, a senior service representative in the Department of Member Relations of the AMA. During the prolonged discussion, Mrs. Smith informed Dr.O that AMNews will now be available for $30 for a 24 hour period. When asked to name an online publication by the AMA, free for the public, that covers public health policies issues, she has referred to the main AMA website. When noted that the main byline of "The Newspaper for America's Physicians" was no longer applicable (i.e. for members only), she said that the newspaper will still be available free to non-AMA members, but only six months after the original publication. Finally, when asked if the PDA edition through AvantGo.com (currently the exact copy of entire online edition) will still be available free of charge, she had no answer. In our opinion, the decision by the AMA is regrettable. As AMA members, we believe that this organization has a responsibility to communicate to society the issues facing patients and physicians. It is unfortunate that the AMA never made an effort to open the science published in JAMA to the people that directly finance the science--taxpayers like you and me. It is doubly regrettable that AMA chose to hide an important public policy journal from the public itself. If you are as outraged as we are about this decision, please send your complaints directly to the AMA through this online feedback form. And if you are a blogger, please spread the word. Thanks.'

Update. Mary Jackson's PPT slides are now online.

(PS: For my quick response, see SOAN for 5/2/05: 'If you tuned in late, I acknowledge that journals add value. It's a myth that OA wants to dispense with these valuable services, although sometimes OA journals must choose between the more essential and the less essential services. The true bone of contention is not whether these services are valuable but how to pay for the most essential services without creating access barriers for readers.' This has been my consistent position for years. See SOAN for 9/4/03: '[P]ublishers often overlook the fact that open-access proponents agree with them [that journals add value]. Open-access proponents might even concede that journals add value in every way that publishers say they do. However, open-access proponents tend to argue that some of these journal services are more essential than others, even if all are valuable, that they cost less than most journals charge for them, that it's better to cover the costs of the essential services from the author's end of the transaction than the reader's end, and therefore that they do not justify access barriers.')

(PS: I like this. An eminent academic research center believes its reputation is enhanced by its association with an OA repository. The typical pattern today is the reverse. Let's hope to see more of this in the future.)

More from the WHO press release: 'HMN partners have agreed to align their individual efforts around a common health information framework thereby reducing overlapping and duplicative demands that have burdened fragile information systems in developing countries in the past....The initial HMN partners include: African Population and Health Research Center; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Danish International Development Agency, Department for International Development (U.K.), European Commission, Ghana Health Services, Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, GAVI, Ministry of Health, Mexico, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Statistics South Africa, Swedish International Development Agency, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, UNICEF, United Nations Statistics Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, World Bank, and World Health Organization. HMN will meet its objectives through a range of activities. Low- and middle-income countries will be eligible to apply for grants of up to US$ 500 000 for health information system strengthening and can call upon HMN partners for technical assistance. By 2011, HMN expects that at least 80 countries will be able to report on agreed, standardized global health goals and indicators in a timely and sound manner.'

(PS: I understand that the Faculty Senate adopted the resolution --unanimously but for one abstention. The stand-alone version of the resolution is not yet online.)

Update. A stand-alone version of the adopted text is now online.

Update. The Delft University of Technology has now signed as well.

Update. Part of Wray's article is a rank-ordering of nations by OA archiving activity. Stevan Harnad has posted a correction to that part of Wray's article.

(PS: If the creators of BMW's didn't expect to be paid, if the costs were already paid by taxpayers, and if the distribution could be done over the internet at costs approaching zero, then free BMW's might be a good idea. But until then it's just a bad analogy. For the rest, I'll repeat what I said the last time Rudy Baum called OA socialist: 'Baum overlooks the fact that the NIH plan is only about disseminating articles that have already been accepted by independent, i.e. non-governmental, peer-reviewed journals. He forgets that nothing in the plan tells scientists what to study or what to conclude, and nothing in it tells journals what to publish or how to conduct peer review. He forgets that the directive to the NIH to develop this plan was adopted unanimously by two Republican-controlled committees. He also forgets what socialism is. The NIH plan does not expropriate private property for public use, but provides public access to publicly-funded research. It does not even deny property rights in these works by individual authors or journals. Let's get back to the subject.')