News from the open access movementJump to navigation
PS: Also see our past post on this service.
The March issue of Libreas is now online. (Thanks to Klaus Graf.) Here are the OA-related articles.
Bill Hooker, Fooling around with numbers, part 3; or, why would anyone pay for these journals? Open Reading Frame, March 13, 2009. See the original post for graphics I'm omitting here. Excerpt:
Update (3/14/09). Also see Heather Morrison's comment:
Update (3/17/09). Also see Part 4 of Bill Hooker's inquiry.
Update (3/19/09). ...And Part 5.
Stevan Harnad, Scaling to Global OA: Parallel Local Green/Gold Is OK, But Gold Alone First, No Way, Open Access Archivangelism, March 14, 2009.
Laurie Taylor, Piercemuller in Parliament, Times Higher Education Supplement, March 12, 2009. (Thanks to Colin Steele.) From Taylor's humor column, The Poppletonian:
From the policy text:
From the policy guidelines:
Comment. Kudos to the OSU Library Faculty Association (LFA) for this strong policy. I applaud the mandatory language, the dual deposit-release strategy (or what Stevan Harnad calls immediate deposit / optional access), and the clarity in making waivers apply only to OA rather than both OA and deposits. I like the way the LFA will help faculty deposit their articles as well as obtain better terms from publishers. You can classify this as a policy from faculty rather than administrators, and as a departmental rather than university-wide policy. Now that the library faculty have taken the lead, I hope we'll see other departments and divisions of OSU, already operating under a policy to encourage self-archiving, strengthen their policy as well.
Update (3/14/09). Also see Stevan Harnad's comment:
Update (3/16/09). Also see the comments of Terry, who is apparently a faculty member at OSU:
Update (3/24/09). Andrew Albanese reports that the vote was unanimous.
Note this juxtaposition:
For more on the US development:
For more on the European development:
Comment. Secret lawmaking is repulsive. The USPTO response to James Love's request is Bush league on FOIA requests and Bush league on secret lawmaking.
Update (3/14/09). Canada too supports transparency at ACTA and early release of its documents. (Thanks to Michael Geist.)
Articles are published under an unspecified "open-access license". There are no author-side fees for "high-impact" articles published as Priority Reports; author-side fees for "regular, high quality papers that are scientifically-sound and well technically performed" are not specified. Authors are also required to provide proactive access to certain data associated with their article:
Nucleic acid and protein sequences, macromolecular structures determined by X-ray crystallography (along with structure factors), and microarray data must be deposited in the appropriate public database and must be accessible without restriction from the date of publication. An entry name or accession number must be included as the last paragraph of the Experimental Procedures section in the final version of the manuscript.
The publisher's site mentions two other planned journals: Impact Biology and Impact Hundred ("like PLoS ONE"). All Impact journals will be OA.
F.W. Dulle, Open Access Publishing: the emerging opportunity for wider dissemination of scholarly output, presented at PANTIL (Programme for Agricultural and Natural Resources Transformation for Improved Livelihoods) Annual Research Workshop, (Dodoma, Tanzania, October 6-9, 2008); self-archived March 11, 2009. Abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to create awareness on the part of researchers and the scholarly community at large regarding the new publishing opportunity for dissemination of their research findings. It highlight on limitations of the current business model of scholarly publishing in dissemination of scientific information as the main cause for the emergence of open access. The paper introduces open access: a means of free availability of scholarly content on the Internet, permitting any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the Internet itself. Open access journals and self-arching as the two main approaches of open access publishing are highlighted. Compares adoption of open access between developed and developing countries. The paper further presents preliminary findings on the awareness, usage as well as researchers’ general perspectives about open access scholarly communication in Tanzanian public universities. The overall results of the study indicate that many researchers use open access to access scholarly content and generally support the new mode of scholarly communication.
Diane Peters, Expanding the Public Domain: Part Zero, Creative Commons, March 11, 2009.
See also our past posts on CC0.
Preben Hansen, Gunnar Ericsson and Oscar Täckström, Steps towards automatic acquisition and recognition of IPR conditions for parallel publishing, Swedish Institute of Computer Science, March 6, 2009. Excerpt:
Comment. It's a pity we still haven't cracked this nut. I argued in 2004 that:
Also see Erik Sandewall, Demonstrating the Use of Author-Deposit Restrictions in Publication-Related Software Systems, a technical report from the Analysis and Development of Electronic Publishing Technologies (ADEPT) project, from Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology and Linköping University, March 8, 2009.
Also see Sandewell's Support for Managing IPR and Parallel Publishing in the MADMAN Research Author Support System, also from the ADEPT project, January 17, 2009.
Bill Hooker, On science and selfishness, Open Reading Frame, March 11, 2009. The context is getting scientists to move from proprietary tools, like Microsoft Word, to open tools like Open Office. But this excerpt is useful well beyond that context:
Comment. When I've said in the past that OA is moving slowly because researchers are preoccupied and overworked, this is 90% of what I meant. Well-put. The other 10%? Researchers are proud to be preoccupied by their research, and skilled at shutting out what they believe to be irrelevant. Their oblivion isn't always absent-mindedness. It's often a cultivated aversion to distraction. Acting on first impressions or hearsay, many of them classify OA with boring and irrelevant developments in the technology of publishing, or worse, the economics of publishing.
Some are ignoring the sharper saw because they're too focused on something else to see what you're offering. Others have already decided it's a ping-pong paddle.
Charles Auffray, Sharing knowledge: a new frontier for public-private partnerships in medicine, Genome Medicine, March 4, 2009. An editorial.
Access to the full text requires free registration. Excerpt:
Christian Zimmerman, 1000 archives participating in RePEc, RePEc Blog, March 10, 2009. Excerpt:
FCER’s DCConsult Web Site now open access, ChiroEco, March 12, 2009. Excerpt:
John Wilbanks, Uncommon Knowledge and Open Innovation: Building a Science Commons, presented at ETech 2009 (San Jose, Calif., March 9-12, 2009).
... What we are doing here is reducing the time and cost at which the Kuhnian revolution cycles operate – dumb ideas get exposed faster, and good ideas get validated faster. This is about the only way to accelerate those revolutions that does not rely on magical thinking: if we can make the things we know more useful in the evaluation of hypotheses and models, we are simply increasing the mathematical odds of discovery. This is the transformational potential. ...
See also Robert Kaye's notes on the presentation.
See also our past posts on John Wilbanks and Science Commons.
Marcus Hirschfelder, Open Access - Grundlagen, internationale Vorgaben, rechtliche Umsetzbarkeit, JurPC, March 12, 2009. (Thanks to Klaus Graf.) Read it in German or Google's English.
Whether certain OA strategies are compatible with existing law in Germany and the EU, and whether any amendments are needed to implement them.
Update (3/13/09). There's an active discussion taking place in the comment section of Eric Steinhauer's post on Hirschfelder's article at Wissenschaftsurheberrecht. Read it in German or Google's English.
Word Add-in For Ontology Recognition is a new, free/open source add-in for Microsoft Word 2007 to add semantic information as XML mark-up using ontologies and controlled vocabularies, and to integrate manuscript content with existing public data repositories. See the Microsoft press release or coverage at O'Reilly; from the latter:
... [John] Wilbanks says that Science Commons has been working for several years to build up a library of these scientific entities. "What Microsoft has done is to build plugins that work essentially the same way you'd use spell check, they can check for the words in their paper that have hyperlinks in our open knowledge base, and then mark them up." ...
The Newropeans are a new trans-European political party planning to run candidates for the European Parliament from all 27 member states in the June 2009 elections. Its platform includes support for OA:
Large Photos of Famous Places and Landscapes Now Available Free Online, press release, March 3, 2009. (Thanks to ResourceShelf.)
VTLS Announces the Release of VITAL 4.0, press release, March 10, 2009. (Thanks to Charles Bailey.)
VTLS is proud to announce the release of VITAL 4.0. VITAL is VTLS' solution for today's digital and institutional repositories. Designed to provide all functions of a repository VITAL provides capabilities to ingest, create, maintain, validate, uniquely identify, secure, preserve and export the contents of institutional collections. ...See also our past posts on VITAL: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Heather Morrison, Open Access Journals: Around the World, and Top OA Publishing Countries, The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics, March 10, 2009.
Open Database License Draft Available for Comments, Open Data Commons, February 27, 2009.
Comment. The ODbL is, as Rufus Pollock describes it, the "Attribution, Share-Alike" data license. Compare the ODC's Public Domain Dedication and Licence, its "no rights reserved" license.
See also our past posts on Open Data Commons.
Elizabeth Connor, Interview with Dean Giustini, Biomedical Branch Librarian at the University of British Columbia, Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, January 2009. See also Giustini's self-archived version. Abstract:
This interview with Dean Giustini of the University of British Columbia (UBC) describes his interest in various topics including Web 2.0, Web 3.0, grey literature, open access, and teaching and learning.Excerpt:
... [I]n its current form, the Web has made it increasingly difficult to explain scholarly publishing to undergraduates. Web 2.0 is anarchic and revolutionary, which is both a strength and a weakness in terms of bibliographic control. In addition, the rise of open-access journals and the changing notion of what makes a "journal article" have made the Web landscape more complex and harder to explain. ...See also our past posts on Giustini.
The internet's librarian, The Economist, March 5, 2009.
See also our past posts on:
JISC, OCLC’s Vice President talks libraries, the future and learning, podcast (24:17), March 9, 2009.
... In this podcast interview OCLC’s Vice President Karen Calhoun talks to Robert Haymon-Collins, JISC’s Director of Communications and Marketing, to discuss what her organisation does in the field of providing digital content for learning and research, and how improved access to this well-catalogued knowledge can help improve the student experience – a key theme of this year's JISC conference. Calhoun also clarifies OCLC’s recent proposed policy changes concerning the use of OCLC records, an issue that has generated lively debate within the library and information communities both in the UK and further afield.See also this announcement:
Archan Venkatraman, STM growth takes hit, Information World Review, March 9, 2009.
Remedios Melero, at al., Situación de los repositorios institucionales en España: informe 2009, report, March 2009. (Thanks to Carolina De Volder.) The first in a proposed series of reports on IRs in Spain.
Richard Poynder, Open Access: Whom would you back? Open and Shut? March 10, 2009. This is a long article making a sustained argument. I can't excerpt enough of it to show the full argument without trespassing too far on Richard's good will. So I'll start with a short excerpt setting the stage and then in my comments quote individual sentences to which I'd like to respond. Excerpt:
Update (3/12/09). Also see the comments of Ivy Anderson, including her insider details on the deal between Springer and the U of California.
Update (3/17/09). Also see the comments of Steven Hall, a publishing consultant formerly with Blackwell, ProQuest, and Chadwyck-Healey.
Andrew Albanese, In 2009 Appropriations Bill, NIH Public Access Mandate Would Become Permanent, Library Journal, March 10, 2009. Excerpt:
Update (3/11/09). Obama did sign the bill. It's law.
Update (3/11/09). Also see Gavin Baker's comments.
A new knowledge network devoted to the changing role of information in scholarly research, higher education and business practice, announcement posted to SPARC-OAForum, March 7, 2009.
PIRUS — Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics: Final Report, report, January 2009. (Thanks to Charles Bailey.) From the executive summary:
The aim of PIRUS (Publisher and Institutional Repository Usage Statistics) was to develop COUNTER-compliant standards and usage reports at the individual article level that can be implemented by any entity (publisher, aggregator, repository, etc.,) that hosts online journal articles and will enable the usage of research outputs to be recorded, reported and consolidated at a global level in a standard way. ...See also our past post on PIRUS or our past posts on COUNTER (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
Liz Allen, Expanding the outreach of PLoS content in the developing world, Public Library of Science, March 6, 2009.
Charlotte Webber, BioMed Central undertakes large fundraising drive for Computer Aid in 2009, BioMed Central Blog, February 24, 2009.
Free Our Books (or Free Our Books and Research Papers) is a new campaign for OA to taxpayer-funded research in the UK, to be launched at the Internet For Activists conference (London, March 14, 2009). (Thanks to infinite thØught.)
Glenn S. McGuigan and Robert D. Russell, The Business of Academic Publishing: A Strategic Analysis of the Academic Journal Publishing Industry and its Impact on the Future of Scholarly Publishing, Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, Winter 2008. (Thanks to Michael Nielsen.) Abstract:
Academic libraries cannot pay the regularly escalating subscription prices for scholarly journals. These libraries face a crisis that has continued for many years revealing a commercial system that supports a business model that has become unsustainable. This paper examines the “serials crisis,” as it has come to be known, and the economics of the academic journal publishing industry. By identifying trends within the industry, an analysis of the industry is undertaken using elements of the five forces framework developed by Michael Porter. Prescriptions are offered concerning what can be done and what should be done to address this problem.From the body:
Hamid R. Jamali and David Nicholas, E-print depositing behavior of physicists and astronomers: An intradisciplinary study, Journal of Academic Librarianship, forthcoming. Only this abstract is free online, at least so far:
This article investigates the e-print depositing behavior of physicists and astronomers. Fifty-six PhD students and staff at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University College London were interviewed. A survey was also carried out (47.1% response rate). The study investigates the relation between variables such as research area, type of research (theoretical, experimental and so on), and the amount of reading on the patterns of e-print depositing. The findings showed that clear intradisciplinary differences exist among different subfields of physics and astronomy.Update. See also the OA self-archived version.
Bill Hooker has used Elsevier data to show that there is "no apparent correlation between IF [impact factor] and price." Excerpt:
Comment. Also see White and Creaser 2007, which showed little correlation between price and impact factor. Bergstrom and Bergstrom 2004 showed that journal prices are either unrelated to citation impact or inversely related to it:
Update (3/10/09). Also see Part 2 of Bill's investigation. Excerpt:
Comment. I've written a few times about document summarizing software, and how useful it will be when there is more OA literature to sic it on. But this is the first time I've seen any sign that the software could actually use OA literature to guide and improve the summaries, the way statistical machine translation software uses OA literature to guide and improve translations. Neat.
There's a nice positive feedback loop here: The more OA literature we have, the better this software will work, and the better it works, the more it supports what I call the software strategy for OA by creating new incentives to make even more work OA.
Peter Williams, Publishers denounce JISC open access report, Information World Review, March 9, 2009. Excerpt:
PS: Also see my post on the Houghton report, which includes longer excerpts from its findings.
Thomas Walker, an entomologist at the U of Florida, discovered that his (unnamed) professional society took a position against the NIH policy without consulting the members. In a recent letter it asked members to sign a petition in support of DC Principles Coalition, an organization which lobbies against the NIH policy and in favor of the Conyers bill.
Walker would like to know whether other societies taking similar steps.
PS: I've often seen society publishers take a public stance against the NIH policy or FRPAA without apparently consulting their members. See examples from 2006, 2007, 2008. Also see our past posts on Walker.
Kate M. Manuel, The Google Library Project: Is Digitization for Purposes of Online Indexing Fair Use Under Copyright Law? A CRS Report from the Congressional Research Service, February 5, 2009. From the summary:
PS: I haven't had time to read the whole report, but it appears that Manuel summarizes the issues raised by the question, and some criteria from the Copyright Act and case law, without offering an opinion.
Andre Vellino, Open Access for Canadian Scientific Publishing at Risk, Ethical Dilemmas, March 7, 2009. Excerpt:
Update (3/17/09). Tracey Lauriault at Datalibre.ca has some new details:
Update (4/7/09). Also see Norman Oder's article in Library Journal.
In his February 15 column, George Will asserted the widely-circulating claim that climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting global cooling. Climate scientists quickly jumped in to correct him and the blogosphere lit up with the debate. Many of their corrections cited a peer-reviewed article definitively demolishing Will's canard: Thomas Peterson et al., The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 2008.
Comment. I like this story. A peer-reviewed OA article helped correct a widely-read error. If the definitive treatment of the issue had been TA, fewer people would have been aware of it. Citations and even links would have been less helpful in spreading the word. Climate change skeptics could more easily have stood their ground and pushed FUD. But because the definitive treatment was OA, journalists and bloggers could write about the story, consult the primary literature, and point interested readers to the same source. Non-specialists, and non-professionals without university access to TA literature, could see for themselves what the specialists were saying, without having to trust a journalist or blogger to interpret it for them. I'm sure the Peterson article didn't settle the controversy in the sense of converting all the doubters, especially the doubters unwilling to look at the evidence. But it injected evidence into a public controversy which owed its origin in part to the lack of evidence, and it showed which position had the evidence on its side.
However, I'd like to give him some good press, or at least two cheers, for providing OA to the data from his earlier surveys in 2001 and 1990. I'd add the third cheer but I can't find OA data for the newest survey.
CARL-SPARC toolkit encourages authors to maximize research through digital repositories, a press release from CARL and SPARC. Excerpt:
Gavin Baker, On jurisdiction; or, letting copyright trump science, A Journal of Insignificant Inquiry, March 8, 2009.
Lawrence Lessig, A Reply to Congressman Conyers, Lessig, March 9, 2009. Excerpt:
UK PubMed Central launched a blog on March 2. Already it's posted several developments which I haven't seen elsewhere:
I've added the UKPMC blog to my daily crawl.
Jeremy Donald, Openness: Fostering Sharing, Collaboration, and Open Access to Knowledge and Resources - Notes, EDUCAUSE Connect, March 6, 2009. Notes on a session at the EDUCAUSE Southwest Regional Conference (San Antonio, February 24-26, 2009).
Virginia Releases Physics Flexbook for Public Review, press release, February 27, 2009.
See also coverage at:
See also our past post on the flexbook.
Peter Murray-Rust, Wellcome gets tough on Open Access depositions, A Scientist and the Web , March 7, 2009.
... I was delighted to get an internal email to all staff making it clear that it was mandatory for Wellcome grantees to publish their papers as Open Access. Here’s excerpts from the mail: [Note: omitting excerpts.] ...
See also our past post on the Wellcome compliance audit.
The International Journal for Ayurveda Research is a new peer-reviewed OA journal published by the Indian Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy and Medknow. There are no author-side charges. Re-use with attribution is permitted for non-commercial purposes.
GREDOS (Gestión del REpositorio DOcumental de la Universidad de Salamanca) is the new IR at the University of Salamanca. The IR is divided into four sections:
The repository launched with more than 125,000 documents. GREDOS is licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license.
See also our past posts on USAL:
Here's more on the OA connection from Mendeley Founder and Director, Victor Henning, quoted with his permission:
PS: Also see our past posts on Mendeley.
Acting quickly, Germany's Prometheus image archive launched a special OA collection, Das digitale Historische Archiv Köln, to host and protect digital copies of documents from the Köln (Cologne) city archives, which collapsed on March 3. The new archive is calling for help in collecting documents on the history of Cologne. (Thanks to Klaus Graf.)
The Creative Campus Initiative is a project by several UK universities to organize activities for the Cultural Olympiad, inspired by the London 2012 Olympics. The proposal includes the "creation of a lasting and open-access repository of new digital content and evaluation and audience reception research associated with the Cultural Olympiad".
Stuart Weibel, Are Data Repositories the New Institutional Repositories?, Weibel Lines, March 3, 2009. Comments on the future of data repositories and data curation, including the NSF DataNet solicitation.
Opening Access to Knowledge in Southern African Universities is a new report published by the Southern African Regional Universities Association. From the executive summary:
From the proposed vision statement:
On the proposed research publishing and dissemination platform:
From the foreword by SARUA CEO Piyushi Kotecha:
On March 5, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) became the fifth co-sponsor of the Conyers bill, and the first to add her name since the bill was re-introduced on February 3. She's also the first co-sponsor from outside the House Judiciary Committee.
It's very important that NY researchers and institutions contact her (by web form, phone or fax) to express support for the NIH policy and opposition to any bill which would repeal it --whether it's the Conyers bill (HR 801) or equivalent language tucked into a different bill.
As usual, you will be more persuasive if you can explain why the NIH policy matters to you, your work, or your organization. Be specific and be personal. Speak for yourself, but if you can, get your institution to send a letter as well. Save your message; you may need to adapt and reuse it later. And please spread the word to your NY colleagues.
Allyson Mower and Lisa Chaufty, Do something no one has imagined: The 2008 SPARC Digital Repositories meeting, College & Research Libraries News, March 2009. (Thanks to Garrett Eastman.) Excerpt:
Michael Eisen, John Conyers Tries [and Fails] to Explain His Position, It is NOT Junk, March 7, 2009. Excerpt: