News from the open access movementJump to navigation
Before blogging this post, I asked Matt Cockerill for his own recollection of what he said. He gave me permission to quote his reply (Thanks, Matt):
Comments. I'm glad Matt was able to clarify. I agree with his point, but couldn't have agreed that the NIH policy was literally regressive. Like many of our other success stories, the NIH policy a big step forward even if it stops short of BBB OA. The NIH policy provides free online access (gratis OA) to an estimated 80,000 peer-reviewed articles per year. That's unambiguous progress, and it's hard-won. But the policy removes price barriers without removing permission barriers. All other funder and university policies in the world do the same thing. The NIH policy also permits embargoes of up to 12 months, while all other funder policies focused on medical research limit embargoes to six months. Many funder and university OA policies, including the NIH policy, require immediate deposit in an OA repository, but none requires immediate OA release. In short, the NIH policy doesn't provide the kind of immediate BBB OA that many OA journals routinely provide, but neither do any other funder and university policies. The reason is not that NIH came first and set a bad example which late-comers imitated. The reason is that funder and university policies must mandate OA in a way which is compatible with author freedom to publish in all or most journals as they are today, regardless of what we wish them to be (and what they might eventually become). I'm whole-heartedly with those who want to solve this problem, go further, and provide BBB OA to all research literature, and at key points in the evolution of the NIH policy I've proposed exactly this tweak. But we have to make progress in the landscape where we find ourselves, and we shouldn't mistake partial progress for regress.
Update (8/2/08). Here's how Matt Cockerill made the point in a blog post on August 2, 2008:
PS: This is true. Another way to put it is that the NIH policy provides gratis OA, while text mining generally requires libre OA. (For more on gratis and libre OA, see my article in the August 2008 SOAN.)
Vivien Marx, Oxford University Press to Launch New Journal on Biological Databases, BioInform, July 25, 2008 (accessible only to subscribers). Excerpt:
Comment. The focus on OA databases makes Database blogworthy. But I wish I could tell you more about the journal's own access policy. The OUP page on Changes to the journals listing in 2009 says that Database will be "online-only and fully open access during 2009." So at least it won't merely be a hybrid OA journal in the Oxford Open series. But is the plan to keep it OA, like OUP's NAR, or to offer just a teaser year of OA and then introduce subscription fees?
Update (7/28/08). OUP's Kirsty Luff has answered my question and allowed me to post her answer. (Thanks, Kristy.)
Alma Swan, Here, there, or even everywhere? Where researchers should deposit their articles, Optimal Scholarship, July 25, 2008. Excerpt:
Comment. Kudos to all involved, especially INFN President Roberto Petronzio. Now to put the Berlin principles into practice: Will the INFN follow-up with a policy to provide OA to its research output?
NASA Images will launch next week, according to an article today from vnunet.com. (Thanks to ResourceShelf.) From the article:
Nasa is to make its huge collection of historic photographs, film and video available to the public for the first time.See also our previous coverage of NASA Images.
Update. See also the Internet Archive's press release.
The Extraordinary Everyday Lives Show posted a podcast on open science on July 24. The audio is about one hour long. The participants are Mike Sefang, Graham Steel, Richard P. Grant, and David Wallace. (Thanks to Graham Steel.)
For the third year in a row, Oxford University Press has lowered the subscription prices of its hybrid Oxford Open journals to reflect growing author uptake of the OA option. From yesterday's announcement:
The NIH cover sheet is part of a newly updated page of NIH Employee Procedures for Complying with NIH Public Access Policy. The updated page makes clear that employee manuscripts "must be accompanied" by the new cover sheet.
Should Publishers Have a Role—and an Interest—in Facilitating NIH Compliance? Library Journal Academic Newswire, July 24, 2008. Excerpt:
PubMed Central Submissions Jump Sharply Under New NIH Policy, Library Journal Academic Newswire, July 24, 2008. Excerpt:
Comments. This good news is especially good in light of two background facts:
The Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine has converted to OA and will be managed by BioMed Central. See the announcement on the BioMed Central blog or the journal's editorial:
Physics won't publish original research articles, but short pieces to highlight, explain, and discuss important articles published in other APS journals.
The articles in the inaugural issue are free online, but the site is as silent on OA as it is on subscription costs. The articles use all-rights-reserved copyright statements.
Comment. I try not to blog articles and journals which are only free for an initial trial period. But I can't yet classify Physics because it doesn't reveal enough about its plans. On the theory that "free" is an attraction worth mentioning, I suspect that Physics is only free for an initial trial period. But I really don't know. If anyone knows more, please drop me a line.
Update (9/23/08). Also see the APS press release. It doesn't answer the question in my comment, but it does say that the journal has been in beta since July. Apparently it's now out of beta.
Science Commons has released its recommendations for open science, a two-page hand-out prepared for the open science workshop (Barcelona, July 16-17, 2008) held in conjunction with the EuroScience Open Forum 2008 (Barcelona, July 18-22, 2008). Excerpt:
Patrick Vandewalle, Jelena Kovacevic, and Martin Vetterli, What, Why and How of Reproducible Research in Signal Processing, a preprint submitted to IEEE Signal Processing Magazine. Self-archived June 20, 2008. (Thanks to Stevan Harnad.)
The authors work in the Audiovisual Communications Laboratory at Switzerland's Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. Also see their page on Reproducible Research and their RR Repository, Blog, and Forum. For background, see my blog post from last year (7/14/08) on their RR work.
David Green and Michael Roy, Things to Do While Waiting for the Future to Happen: Building Cyberinfrastructure for the Liberal Arts, Educause Review, July/August 2008. Excerpt:
NRC Publications Archive: Extending the reach and increasing the impact of NRC research, a press release from Canada's National Research Council (NRC), July 23, 2008. Excerpt:
Wide Screen is a new peer-reviewed OA journal of cinema "from historical, theoretical, political, and aesthetic perspectives." (Thanks to Reader List.) The journal has issued a call for papers and expects to publish the first issue in February 2009.
Update. Subaltern Cinema appears to be another new OA journal, but in fact it uses the same language and lists the same editors as Wide Screen. It looks like the founders couldn't decide between the two titles. (PS: If you're counting votes, I like Wide Screen better.)
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine has posted three comments in response to Stevan Harnad's article in the December 2007 issue, Ethics of open access to biomedical research: Just a special case of ethics of open access to research. One comment is by Yuntao Wu, one by Jean-Claude Guédon, and one is a response by Stevan to Jean-Claude's comment (on the relative weight of access for lay readers in the rationale for OA policies).
Klaus Graf argues that the Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR), now in beta, (1) requires CC or DIPP licenses and (2) recommends that authors use author addenda which wouldn't allow them to use CC or DIPP licenses. He warns that if SSOAR is not more flexible, it will block rather than encourage deposits. Read his argument in German or in Google's English.
Eric T. Meyer and Ralph Schroeder, The World Wide Web of Research and Access to Knowledge. Apparently a preprint. Self-archived June 19, 2008. (Thanks Branwen Hide.)
Uncovering Open Access: seizing the moment and making it work for you – experiences from the ground, July 22, 2008. Anonymous blog notes on the OA session at the Locating the Power of In-between Conference (Pretoria, July 3-4, 2008). Excerpt:
Update. Also see the comment from John Wilbanks of Science Commons:
Alexander R. Pico and five co-authors, WikiPathways: Pathway Editing for the People, PLoS Biology, July 22, 2008.
A consortium of major medical schools has announced the World’s Largest Collaborative [OA] Online Encyclopedia of Medicine And Health, July 23, 2008. Excerpt:
Karin Weishaupt, Der freie Zugang zum Wissen: auf dem Weg, aber noch nicht am Ziel! Institut Arbeit und Technik, August 2008. (Thanks to Christine Kant.) Preliminary results from a survey of author attitudes toward OA journals. Because the file is a PDF, I can't link to a machine translation.
Weishaupt highlights four conclusions (my paraphrase, not a translation):
Weishaupt surveyed about 1,000 researchers at Humboldt University Berlin in May and June 2008.
Fung evaluates 34 databases to date, under six criteria: Downloadable, Offers Batch Processing, Offers a Query Interface, No Registration Required, Policy is Available, Public Domain. Her website supports the open-data research of Melanie Dulong de Rosnay, described last week by Ethan Zuckerman (and blogged here).
Comment. This is a very time-consuming but useful job. Everyone in molecular biology should be grateful, especially if the project leads to more consistent policies on open data across the field.
Kevin Smith, Where should we spend our money? Scholarly Communications at Duke, July 21, 2008. Excerpt:
Antony Williams, Indexing Institutional Repositories and Authors Self-Archived Collections, ChemSpider, July 23, 2008. Excerpt:
PS: For background, see Tim Berners-Lee's description of Linked Data (July 2006).
The July/August issue of the eIFL.net Newsletter is now online. Excerpt:
On May 14-15, the Georgian Integrated Library & Information System Consortium (GILISC) and eIFL.net jointly organised the workshop “Open Access: New Models for Scholarly Communication”. Hosted by the Ilia Chavchavadze State University, the workshop addressed Open Access policies and recommendations and highlighted the benefits of Open Access journals and Open repositories. As a result, workshop participants have created a National Open Access working group. More information and presentations from the workshop are available [here].
Gunther Eysenbach, Creating an organization for open access publishers - but should we let big publishers dominate? Gunther Eysenbach's Random Research Rants, July 15, 2008. (Thanks to Charles Bailey.) Excerpt:
PS: See my own comments on the draft OASPA bylaws.
Debra Viadero, Stanford Opens Access to All Its Education Studies, Education Week, July 18, 2008. Excerpt:
The Max-Planck-Institut für europäische Rechtsgeschichte has provided OA to the backfile (1967-2001) of its journal, Ius Commune. (Thanks to Josef Pauser via Klaus Graf.)
The articles are free online, but I can't find any licensing information about them, either on the TOC or on individual articles.
The bibliography is based on Charles Bailey's definitive Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals (ARL, 2005). We are very grateful to Charles and the ARL for their willingness to move the bibliography to OAD for community updating and revision. Here's how Charles described the launch on his blog this morning:
The OAD bibliography couldn't have a better foundation for future development. It includes all the citations in Charles' original work and omits only his Preface, Acknowledgements, and introductory essay, Key Open Access Concepts.
Remember that OAD is a wiki. We appreciate your help in keeping its lists comprehensive, accurate, and up to date.
Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data, a discussion paper from the Economic Development and
Comment. The committee is soliciting public comments on the paper, which are due by August 22, 2008. (See the submission details here and on p. ix of the report.) After digesting the comments, the committee will report back to Parliament by June 30, 2009. I urge Australians, and especially Victorians, to submit comments to the committee in support of OA for publicly-funded research.
The Journal of Transport and Land Use is a new peer-reviewed, no-fee OA journal from the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota. JTLU publishes under a CC-BY-NC license. From the editorial by David Levinson and four co-authors in the inaugural issue (Summer 2008):
The August issue of Walt Crawford's Cites & Insights is now online. This issue contains a lengthy section on Library Access to Scholarship, which covers the OA mandate at Harvard Law School, the OA mandate at the Stanford School of Education, OA library journals, suspicions about Scientific Journals International, the Open Access Directory, the distinction between gratis OA and libre OA, Richard Poynder's inquiry into the costs of OA publishing, and Charles Bailey's 19 years as an internet publisher.