Welcome to the SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #70
February 2, 2004
Read this issue online
Predictions for 2004
In the last issue I looked back over 2003. Here let me look forward to 2004. It's only fun if you let me be wrong. So with your permission:
* The major objections to OA journals will be that processing fees exclude poor authors, corrupt peer review, and constitute an "untested" business model. The major objections to OA archives will be that widespread archiving will kill subscription-based journals and that easy access to unrefereed preprints will endanger public health. All are answerable, but they won't go away any time soon. Still, there is progress: these were not the most common objections we heard three years ago. The new objections are more specific and more amenable to empirical evidence.
* The need for empirical evidence will be met by a growing number of studies and surveys of OA journals. There are several already in the works, e.g. from OSI, ALPSP, publishers working with Highwire Press, and a brace of graduate students working on theses and dissertations. Perhaps even the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee should be counted in this column.
* Large, for-profit, non-academic search engines like Google, Yahoo, and the new Microsoft contender will realize that OA is in their interest and join the alliance fighting for it. They might even join the ranks of those funding it. OA will give them a larger and more useful body of content to index for searching. That means it will bring in more traffic and enable them to sell more advertising. The only obstacle: none will want to go first, for all the new OA content they fund will immediately be indexable by the others.
* More journals will experiment with OA, especially through embargo periods, hybrid models, and priced add-ons. Some will find creative funding methods we haven't seen yet. We'll see the first OA resource funded by its own endowment. Most of the journal experiments will be at society and non-commercial publishers, but commercial publishers worried about the unsustainability of the subscription model will start to test the waters. More journals of both kinds will let PubMed Central digitize and offer free online access to their back runs, realizing that for sufficiently old content they gain much more from the visibility and impact than from the revenue. Journal self-interest will join author and reader self-interest in fueling new progress.
* We'll see more OA initiatives in the humanities. The greatest activity will still be in the STM fields, but the arguments, policies, and tools that make OA attractive and feasible in the STM fields will gain new traction in the social sciences and humanities. (See the story below on OA in the humanities.)
* We'll see more initiatives to provide OA to raw and semi-raw data, not just to articles that analyze or interpret data. There are many problems to solve if we want OA data files to be viewable through browsers, interoperable, queryable, annotated with metadata, and usefully marked up in XML. But more researchers and funding agencies will realize that we don't need to solve these problems before we take steps to attain the benefits of OA itself.
* There will be more struggle over the exact definition of the term "open access". The intramural struggle will be motivated by actual disagreements, even if minor. (Success raises the stakes without changing the issues.) The extramural struggle will be motivated by a growing number of journals and databases using the rhetoric of open access for half-measures and toll-access shams.
* There will be less unity in the OA movement, or at least less concern to preserve solidarity in every public discussion. Some friends of OA will criticize PLoS for high processing fees, on the ground that they exclude some authors. Other friends will criticize BMC for low processing fees, on the ground that they prevent competition from journals that would have to charge higher fees. More large organizations will embrace practices that we'd all identify as open access, but they will refuse to use the phrase "open access", not wanting to alienate key supporters who fear and misunderstand it.
* Universities will start to make systematic commitments to open access, not just on institutional eprint repositories but on a wider range of issues such as locally launched journals, locally hosted conferences, and locally approved theses and dissertations.
* Government funding agencies will start to catch up with private foundations in supporting some form of OA, such as paying processing fees charged by OA journals or requiring the deposit of funded research in OA archives. Private-sector publishing associations will lobby against these policies. We'll learn whether it's politically safe for legislators to support the public interest in OA over the private interests of publishers. (In general it has not been politically safe for legislators in the U.S. to protect the public interest in fair use rights, the public domain, limited copyright terms, the first-sale doctrine for electronic content, P2P file sharing, and open-source software. But there are reasons to think OA is different. Lobbyists can't hide the fact that taxpayers have already paid for 60% of the research done at universities in the U.S. It's unfair to make them pay again to see it. Lobbyists can't hide the fact that legislators themselves approve spending nearly $20 billion a year on university-based research. Fairness aside, mere bean-counting would want to harness OA to make that research more useful and effective.)
* There will be more cancellations of expensive journals and more defections from the bundling deals offered by major publishers. Nearly every research library in the world has been frustrated with journal prices, bundling conditions, access policies, and licensing terms --for decades. Most have been held back by faculty demand for subscriptions. As more libraries find successful ways to explain the crisis to faculty, and as more universities set courageous examples, we'll see more universities expressing their long-simmering frustration with action. At the same time, more financial analysts will issue stock warnings on the major commercial journal publishers based on library discontent and cancellations, government inquiries, and the rise of OA through archives and journals.
* The many different wings of the larger information commons movement --open access research, open source software, copyright and patent reform, spectrum reform, anti-filtering campaigns-- will work together more often and more successfully on common interests. Just as separate groups defending air, water, and wildlife joined to form the environmental movement, and gained clout as they did, a larger and more effective information freedom coalition is emerging of which the OA movement is just a part.
* Amazon's Search Inside the Book will prove that free online full-text triggers a net increase in the sale of books, even if the free access is only for searching and not reading. This will draw attention to other, earlier proofs, from the National Academies Press to the Baen Free Library, that free online full-text to books triggers a net increase in sales even when the free access extends to reading, printing, and copying. This will spread the open access movement to books --the first non-giveaway or royalty-based content where OA has a chance of being both lawful and popular with producers. OA will spread among book authors and publishers faster than among musicians and record studios because fewer people want to read whole books online than want to copy and play music files.
* Finally, the sheer volume of news about open access will continue to grow rapidly. This is good for OA, but alarming for someone whose job is to track this news, digest it, and offer some perspective on it. Two years ago I covered OA alongside related topics like fair use, censorship, and priced online scholarship. But as the volume of OA news grew, I had to narrow my focus in order to keep the task manageable. As the volume of OA news continues to grow, I'll have to narrow my focus again, and start distinguishing primary OA news from secondary, and omitting the secondary. We'll all have to remember that this is a sign of success, even if it also marks the end of an era.
* Postscript. Here are some 2003 wrap-ups and 2004 forecasts from elsewhere.
The Creative Commons' 10 New Year's Resolutions for 2004
(The fourth: "Explore Science Commons.")
Stephen Downes, predictions for 2004 especially on open content, from Ubiquity, 1/21/04
(Among them: further advances for OA journals and other varieties of open content)
Paula Hane's review of open access and related publishing developments in Information Today, 1/2/04
Doug Isenberg's survey of 2003 developments in the legal regulation of the internet for News.com
Peter Jacsó's annual Cheers and Jeers column for Information Today, 1/2/04
(Includes praise for PubMed, PubMed Central, and BioMed Central)
Outsell predictions for the information content industry in 2004
(Prediction #6: "The Open Access movement in scholarly and scientific publications will gain legitimacy.")
Robin Peek review of recent open access developments for Information Today, 1/2/04
Bill Rosenblatt review of 2003 legal developments in DRM and copy protection for DRM Watch, 1/6/04
Review of fair-use and information freedom issues in 2003, by the editors of News.com
Thoughts from 11 industry leaders, including top figures at LexisNexis, the British Library, OCLC, ProQuest, Chemical Abstracts Service, Thomson Gale, Ingenta, and Outsell, assembled by Lou Andreozzi for Information Today, January 5, 2004
I know this newsletter is long, but is it too long? If so, what should I cut?
I could write fewer or shorter essays. The "best of the blog" sections (new developments and new bibliography) are already selective, and their items brief, so it would be hard to shorten them without cutting them altogether. But I could cut them altogether. They take up the most space in the newsletter and the content is already in the blog, which has a searchable archive. Or is it useful, even at the price of greater length, to see that material selected and condensed once a month?
I'd appreciate your thoughts. Send me your comments at email@example.com.
Open access in the humanities
OA archiving took off fastest in physics and OA journals took off fastest in biomedicine. There are fascinating cultural and economic reasons why these disciplines opened first. But for a moment let's focus on the other end of the pack where OA is moving the slowest. Why is OA moving so slowly in the humanities?
Here are nine differences between the humanities and the sciences that help explain their different rates of progress.
(1) Journal prices are much higher in science, technology, and medicine (the STM fields) than in the humanities. The pricing crisis is not the only reason to consider OA, and not the primary reason for researchers themselves, but it's a major one for libraries and universities. In the humanities affordable journals defuse the urgency of reducing prices or turning to OA as part of the solution. Researchers have the same motivation to consider OA in the humanities and the sciences --to enlarge their audience and increase their impact. But the sciences see a convergence of motives, and hence a partnership of stakeholders, missing from the humanities.
According to the 2002 _Library Journal_ pricing survey, the average subscription prices for journals in STM fields were 10-20 times higher than the average prices in the humanities. For example, compare biology ($1,097.01), chemistry ($2,143.22), and physics ($2,218.82) with history ($126.35), literature ($110.51), and philosophy ($146.60).
(2) Much more STM research is funded than humanities research. Hence, in the STM fields there is much more money to pay the processing fees charged by OA journals. In the humanities, there are fewer OA journals, and nearly all of them operate without processing fees.
(3) At least in the U.S., the government funds far more STM research than humanities research. Hence the "taxpayer argument" for open access (that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay a second fee for access to the results of taxpayer-funded research) is stronger in the STM fields than the humanities. The taxpayer argument isn't the only argument for open access, but it's one of the strongest and certainly one of the first to appeal to policy-makers and the public. It may only apply to a fraction of STM research, but that fraction dwarfs the comparable fraction of humanities research.
Total U.S. federal funding for university research in fiscal 2001, in all fields, was about $19 billion, which constituted about 60% of all funding for university research. Of this, eight federal agencies, all in STM fields, provided 97% of this funding, and two of the agencies alone, NIH and NSF, provided $14.2 billion or 75%. By contrast, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) budget for 2002 was $124 million, less than 1% of the STM funding from the 8 leading federal agencies alone.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0431.pdf GAO report of November 14, 2003
http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/2004budget.html NEH budget request for 2004
If we don't limit ourselves to university-based research, then the total research budget of the U.S. is much greater, $110 billion in 2003. All the funding beyond the subset for university-based research was for the STM fields, including defense, none for the humanities.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1639.0/MR1639.0.ch1.pdf Rand Corp. report, 2002
(4) On average, humanities journals have higher rejection rates (70-90%) than STM journals (20-40%). This means that the cost of peer review per accepted article is higher in the humanities, lower in the STM fields. Hence, for OA journals that cover their expenses through processing fees on accepted articles, the fees would have to be higher at the average humanities journal than at the average STM journal. This combines badly with the fact that the humanities receive much less government and foundation funding than the sciences.
H.A. Zuckerman and R.K. Merton first showed this disparity in rejection rates in the 1970's, and ALPSP confirmed it in the 1990's. See the discussion thread on this question from January 2001 in the American Scientist Open Access Forum.
(5) There is more public demand for OA to research on (say) genomics than Greek grammar, which is one reason why genomics has more federal funding than Greek grammar. Of course research can be worth funding and making OA even in the absence of public demand, but public demand tends to create funding, policy, incentives, and lobbyists. Note that public demand ranks some scientific research topics above others (medicine above field biology, for example), just as it does in the humanities (American history above Roman history, for example).
I can acknowledge this even though my own field (philosophy) is in the humanities. But a more contentious way to make a similar point is to say that STM research is more socially useful than humanities research, at least in the way that attracts funding. This is what makes foundations and governments want to pay for it, and what makes them receptive to the argument that the extra cost of OA is worth paying too since it makes a useful research project even more useful.
Before fellow humanists write me angry letters, I'm not saying that humanities research isn't socially useful, or is less useful than the sciences, merely that this is the perception of most funding agencies. There are two kinds of usefulness, which is why the sciences and humanities coexist wherever civilization takes root. But each kind of usefulness tends to be dismissed or misunderstood by champions of the other. The most succinct wisdom on the usefulness and fundability of humanities research was uttered by Aristippus, a Greek philosopher who sought patronage from one rich Athenian after another. Dionysius once asked him, "Why do I always see you philosophers knocking on the doors of the rich, but I never see the rich knocking on the doors of philosophers?" Aristippus replied, "Because philosophers know what they need and the rich don't."
(6) Preprint exchanges meet more needs in the STM fields than in the humanities. STM researchers need to know quickly what is happening in their microspecialization, partly to build on it in their own work and partly to avoid being scooped. Moreover, they need to deposit their own preprints quickly, partly in order to influence fast-moving research and partly to establish priority over others who might be working on the same problem. Preprint archives are very common in the natural sciences, very rare in the humanities.
Of course humanists build on one another's work too and worry about scooping and being scooped. But there's no doubt that the urgency of timely notification of other work is greater in the STM fields than in the humanities. The explanation may lie deep, for example, in their different ways of being socially useful and their different ways of recognizing and rewarding the solution of problems.
(7) Demand for journal articles in the humanities drops off more slowly after publication than demand for articles in the STM fields. This means that humanities journals will worry more than STM journals that offering OA to articles after some embargo period, such as six months after publication, will jeopardize their revenue and survival.
There are three differences here: objective rate of decline in demand after publication, objective risk of lost revenue from delayed OA, and subjective fear of lost revenue from delayed OA. But none of these means that delayed OA will really jeopardize revenue and survival, either in the sciences and humanities. The revenue from selling access to old issues is miniscule, and losing that revenue will not harm a healthy journal, especially when offset by enhanced access, visibility, and impact that can be translated into increased submissions, advertising, and (if they still exist) subscriptions.
(8) Humanities journals often want to reprint poems or illustrations that require permission from a copyright holder. It's much harder to get reprint permission for OA distribution than for a limited-circulation, priced and printed journal. And when permission is granted, for either kind of distribution, it usually costs money. This is why OA will come last to art history.
(9) Journal articles are the primary literature in the STM fields. But in the humanities, journal articles tend to report on the history and interpretation of the primary literature, which is in books. STM faculty typically need to publish journal articles to earn tenure, while humanities faculty need to publish books. But the logic of OA applies better to articles, which authors give away, than to books, which have the potential to earn royalties. (But for one ground of hope, see my second-to-last prediction above.)
* Postscript. In my predictions at the top of the issue I said that I expected to see more OA initiatives in the humanities in 2004. But that doesn't mean that I expect to see the OA-relevant differences between the humanities and the STM fields disappear. These differences explain why OA has been less urgent or harder to subsidize in the humanities, but they don't mean that OA in the humanities is undesirable or impossible. For example, humanists may have fewer reasons for preprint archiving than STM researchers, but most of the advantages of preprint archiving still apply in the humanities and I'm predicting that they will start to have an effect. I'm predicting more peer-reviewed OA journals in the humanities, even if they dispense with upfront processing fees like _Philosophers' Imprint_, published by the University of Michigan library. And I'm predicting OA to more research monographs in the humanities. But more on that in a future issue.
Coming up later this month
Here are some important OA-related events coming up in February. I tried to keep it brief, but February 2004 is one of the richest months for OA events in a very long time.
* February 2, at noon, is the deadline for applying to JISC for funds for converting a conventional journal to open access.
* February 6 is the deadline for applying to the UK Serials Group for a 2004 International Research Award. Among the research topics eligible for funding are "non-commercial models of scholarly publishing" and "new pricing and business models".
* February 12 is the deadline for submitting testimony to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee for its inquiry into journal prices and accessibility. If you're rushing to meet the deadline, remember that the committee requires hardcopy even if you also send an electronic version.
The UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
The committee press release on its inquiry
Guidelines for those submitting written testimony to the committee
* Notable conferences
Thinking Beyond Digital Libraries: Designing the Information Strategy for the Next Decade
Bielefeld, February 3-5, 2004
ePrints UK Bath Workshop
Bath, February 6, 2004
Value in a Culture of Open Access (sponsored by the PSP division of AAP)
Washington, D.C., February 9-11, 2004
Engineering and Scientific Publishing --Relationships and Issues for the Now and the Future
Washington, D.C., February 11-12, 2004
CERN Workshop on Innovations in Scholarly Communication: Implementing the benefits of OAI (3rd Workshop on the OAI)
Geneva, February 12-14, 2004
National Policies on Open Access Provision for University Research Output (by invitation only)
[no web site]
Southampton, February 19, 2004
The Battle for Mindshare: Information Access and Retrieval in the Year 2010 (NFAIS Annual Conference, 2004)
Philadelphia, February 22-24, 2004
Building Collaborative eResearch Environments (a JISC Consultation Workshop)
Edinburgh, February 23, 2004
The Money Trail: Cost and Value in Journal Information Provision (sponsored by the Association of Subscription Agents and Intermediaries)
London, February 23-24, 2003
Defending Access with Confidence: A Practical Workshop on Intellectual Freedom
Seattle, February 24-25, 2004
International Conference on Digital Libraries: Knowledge creation, preservation, access, and management
New Delhi, February 24-27, 2004
* Other OA-related conferences
Best of the blog: new developments
A selection of open-access developments since the last issue of the newsletter, taken from the Open Access News blog, which I write with other contributors and update daily. I give both the item URL and blog posting URL so that you can read the original story as well as what I or another blog contributor had to say about it.
* On January 30, ministerial representatives from 34 nations to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) issued the Declaration on Access to Research Data From Public Funding. This is the first multilateral, multinational endorsement of the "taxpayer argument" for open access. (PS: If half the signatory nations actually provided OA to the research they fund, the landscape would change overnight. So the real question is whether the OECD representatives in a country have any connection with the legislature or research funding agencies in that country.)
* The Elsevier cancellations continue to spread and make news.
Susan Mayor, US universities review subscriptions to journal "package deals" as costs rise, BMJ, January 10, 2004.
The University of California Academic Senate issued a press release explaining its new contract with Elsevier and its judgment that the current business model for journal publishing is "incontrovertibly unsustainable".
Elsevier issued its own press release on the California contract, emphasizing the volume of material the deal makes accessible to California users.
Andrew Porter, Has Reed's Mr 10% lost his golden touch? Fears over growth at Crispin Davis's empire, London Times, January 12, 2004. On troubles at Elsevier including the library cancellations.
Eric Ferreri, Colleges ax journals deal, the Durham NC Herald-Sun, January 12, 2004.
Anon., UC System Inks Five Year Deal with Elsevier, Stops Price Inflation, Library Journal, January 14, 2004.
Anon., TRLN to Forgo the Big Deal, Library Journal, January 14, 2004.
Richard Wray, Dotcom boomer takes on Reed, The Guardian, January 15, 2004.
Kenneth Ball, Libraries cancel Elsevier contract, North Carolina State University's TechnicianOnline, January 16, 2004.
Joseph Schwartz, Campus to drop journal contract, U of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Daily Tar Heel, January 16, 2004.
The provosts of Duke University, North Carolina State University, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote a joint memorandum to the faculties of their universities explaining the decision to cancel Elsevier science journals.
Cutting the other way, JISC and Elsevier announced a two-year agreement to provide ScienceDirect to all UK universities.
Charles Goldsmith, Reed Elsevier Feels Resistance To Web Pricing, Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2004.
Yvette Essen, Market Report, The Telegraph, January 20, 2004. Whether budget cuts in California will force the University of California to renegotiate its contract with Elsevier.
* The Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act (a.k.a. "the database bill") inched closer to passage in the U.S. Congress. The bill would give copyright-like protection to facts, seriously hindering scientific research and the sharing of knowledge.
Text of the bill
Carol Ebbinghouse, If at First You Don't Succeed, Stop!: Proposed Legislation to Set Up New Intellectual Property Right in Facts Themselves, Information Today, January 16, 2004.
The ACM took a strong position against the bill, and an online poll shows that ACM members support the position.
Declan McCullagh, Tech firms fail to squelch database bill, News.com, January 21, 2004.
Roy Mark, House Panel Sparks Database Controversy, InternetNews.com, January 23, 2004.
The EFF created a web site to help Americans send a message to their representative in Congress opposing the database bill.
* On January 27, Editor in Chief Dominique Boullier and the entire editorial board of Les cahiers du numérique resigned from the journal and released an open letter explaining why. They point to CduN's high price and limited online access policy which "contradict our objectives as researchers".
* On January 27, The Netherlands launched the DARE network of OAI-compatible institutional repositories.
* The National Library of Canada has started providing open access to doctoral dissertations on deposit at Theses Canada.
* Stuart M. Shieber, Harvard professor of computer science, has written two sample Alternative Copyright Assignments for others to borrow or adapt.
* Open access distance learning is coming to Nigeria.
* EBSCO A-Z added almost 1,000 open-access journals to its aggregation.
* The Eprints team released the Eprints Handbook, by Les Carr. The handbook should help all users of Erints, the open-source software for building and maintaining open-access OAI-compliant eprint archives. The work was funded by the Open Society Institute.
* The British Library joined the Digital Library Federation.
* Kaiser Permanente, the non-profit health insurer, now offers open access to physician-approved healthcare information.
* The Lithuanian Academy of Sciences digitized and provided open access to 121 historical parchments dating from 1187 to 1500.
* JISC launched two surveys on open-access publishing, one for authors who have already published in an OA journal and one for those who have not. Responses were due by January 30, 2004.
* The University of Amsterdam launched an OAI-compliant institutional repository.
* A poll at Medscape shows that readers overwhelmingly favor open access.
* Starting last month, Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) is open access.
* The Chinese Academy of Sciences signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.
* The DLF announced a Distributed Open Digital Library Initiative and a National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program.
* PLoS now offers institutional memberships and institutional sponsorships, not just individual memberships.
* The EU has funded CLIWOC, an open-access Climatological Database for the World's Oceans 1750-1850 based on data gathered from ships' logbooks.
* The SHERPA Project added six new university partners to help spread the gospel of institutional archiving in the UK.
Also see the January 16 story in the Times Higher Education Supplement on SHERPA, Archive Site Takes Off.
* SPARC, ARL, and the ACRL have updated their Create Change brochure.
* The University of Washington Center for Nanotechnology received a $10 million grant from the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network to help build an "open access [network] to resources...for studying molecular and higher length-scale materials and processes."
* Gary Price has started tracking the fates of the ERIC Clearinghouses since they lost federal funding.
* On December 23, the NIH Director's Council of Public Representatives (COPR) published its recommendation that NIH research grants include funds to pay the processing fees charged by PLoS open-access journals.
Best of the blog: new bibliography
A selection of articles on open access published since the last issue of the newsletter, taken from the Open Access News blog.
* Anon., Industry and government must adopt open-source methods in the life sciences, Acumen Journal of Life Sciences, 1, 3 (Sept. 2003). An unsigned editorial.
* Sally Atwood, Opening Up Online Education, MIT Technology Review, December 2003 / January 2004. On MIT's Open Knowledge Initiative.
* Rudy M. Baum, Counterproductive Restrictions, Chemical & Engineering News, January 26, 2004, p. 5. More on the application of trade embargoes to scientific research articles.
* Gerhard Beier and Ulla Tschida, Journal Publishers Approaches to Self-Archiving and Open Access : ZIM Briefing Paper, a preprint on the Max Planck Society eDoc Server, last revised October 14, 2003.
* Valerie Bence and Charles Oppenheim, The role of academic journal publications in the UK Research Assessment Exercise, Learned Publishing, January 2004.
* Carl T. Bergstrom and Theodore C. Bergstrom, The costs and benefits of library site licenses to academic journals, PNAS Early Edition, January 8, 2004.
* Michael Birnbaum, Human Research and Data Collection via the Internet, Annual Review of Psychology 55, 803 (2004).
* Bo-Christer Björk, Open access to scientific publications - an analysis of the barriers to change? Information Research, January 2004.
* Martha Brogan, A Survey of Digital Library Aggregation Services, Digital Library Federation, 2003.
* Scott Carlson, The Uncertain Fate of Scholarly Artifacts in a Digital Age, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 30, 2004.
* Charles Casey, Challenges for Chemists, Chemistry, and ACS, Chemical and Engineering News, January 5, 2004.
* CNI, Summary Report of the December 8, 2003, CNI Executive Roundtable on Institutional Repositories, CNI, January 29, 2004.
* Barbara Cohen, PLoS Biology in Action, PLoS Biology, January 2004.
* Raym Crow, Guide to Institutional Repository Software, Open Society Institute, Version 2.0, January 14, 2004.
* Donatella Castelli, Open archive solutions to traditional archive/library cooperation, Liber Quarterly, 13, 3/4 (2003).
* John Cruickshank, The Role of Scientific Literature in Electronic Scholarly Communication, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* Michel R. Dagenais, The Future of Scientific and Technical Journals, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* Tony Delamothe and Richard Smith, Open access publishing takes off, BMJ, January 3, 2004.
* Dwight Deugo, Creative Commons: The boundaries of intellectual property, ADTmag.com, January 13, 2004.
* David Dickson, Science and Technology Communication for Development, PLoS Biology, January 2004.
* Kimberly Douglas, Conference Proceedings at Publishing Crossroads, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* Alastair Dryburgh and Jill Cousins, Open Access - Threat or Opportunity? Dryburgh Associates, January 2004.
* Alastair Dunning, The AHDS is Evolving: Changes at the Arts and Humanities Data Service, Ariadne, January 2004.
* Henk Ellerman, Open Access and Impact, In Between, January 21, 2004. A blog posting
* Klaus Franken, Die Zeitschriftenkrise, KOPS-Datenbank, December 2003.
* Frederick Friend, Looking from the Past to the Future, PLoS Biology, January 2004. Drawing lessons for OA from the history of JSTOR.
* Frank Gannon, Ethical profits from publishing, EMBO reports 5, 1 (2004) p. 1. A defense of toll-access publishing.
* Paul Gilster, How to get the data out, the Raleigh News Observer, January 14, 2004.
* Paul Ginsparg, Can Peer Review Be Better Focused? Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* Nat Goodman, Among Databases, Open Access Is Growing Rare, Genome Technology January 28 2004.
* Peter Gregory, Open to interpretation, Chembytes E-Zine, December 2003.
* Eric Goettmann, Le libre accès au Sommet mondial de l'information, Captain Doc, December 2003. An interview with Francis Muguet, chairman of the Scientific Information Working Group of the WSIS, on the WSIS endorsement of open access.
* Peter Gruss, Open Access to Science and Culture, Science 303, 311 (January 16, 2004).
* Rita Gudermann, Wem gehört die Mona Lisa? Die Zeit, January 8, 2004. How digital rights to images obstructs OA to works of historical research that need to reprint those images.
* Lila Guterman, The Promise and Peril of 'Open Access', Chronicle of Higher Education, January 30, 2004.
Lila Guterman, 2 Routes to Open Access: Archives and Institutional Subscriptions, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 30, 2004.
Lila Guterman, Publishers Fear Government Intervention, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 30, 2004.
To follow-up these articles, Lila Guterman hosted an online colloquy on open access in which I was the guest answering questions from users (January 29). The transcript is now online.
* Marieke Guy, Andy Powell and Michael Day, Improving the Quality of Metadata in Eprint Archives, Ariadne, January 2004.
* Susan Hall, Electronic Theses and Dissertations: Enhancing Scholarly Communication and Graduate Student Experience, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* Stevan Harnad, Knowledge freely given should be freely available, Montreal Gazette, January 5, 2003.
* Stevan Harnad, Open Access to Peer-Reviewed Research through Author/Institution Self-Archiving: Maximizing Research Impact by Maximizing Online Access, Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 49, 4 (2003) pp. 337-342.
* Ian Hesketh, TOIA (Technologies for Online Interoperable Assessment): Free Assessment Tools for and by the Community, D-Lib Magazine, January 2004.
* Jonas Holmström, The Cost per Article Reading of Open Access Articles, D-Lib Magazine, January 2004.http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january04/holmstrom/01holmstrom.html
* Janet A. Hughes, Issues and Concerns with the Archiving of Electronic Journals, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* Karen Hunter, Scholarly Publishing: 12 Observations on the Current Situation and Challenges for the Future, Library Connect, December 2003, pp. 2-3.
* Richard Johnson, an open letter to Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Director of the National Institutes of Health, asking him to support open access. The letter is signed by the directors of the American Library Association, the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, the Association of College and Research Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Medical Library Association, and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition.
* Richard Jones, DSpace vs. ETD-db: Choosing software for E-theses, Ariadne, January 2004.
* Rob Kling, The Internet and Unrefereed Scholarly Publishing, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38 (2004) pp. 591-631. (Not online as far as I know.)
* Margaret Landesman, Price Increases Are Not the Problem, Charleston Advisor, January 2004.
* Laura MacDonald et al., Management of intellectual property in publicly-funded research organisations: Towards European Guidelines, European Commission, January 2004.
* Jayne Marks and Timo Hannay, Evolving scholarly communication, Learned Publishing, January 2004.
* Gerry McKiernan, Open Archives Initiative Service Providers, Part I: Science and Technology, Library Hi Tech News, November 2003, pp. 30-38, Part II: Social Sciences and Humanities, ibid., December 2003, pp. 24-31.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/OAI-SP-I.pdf (Part I)
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~gerrymck/OAI-SP-II.pdf (Part II)
* Gerry McKiernan, Scholar-Based Initiatives in Publishing, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* Sally Morris, Scholarship-friendly publishing *in due time*, Liber Quarterly, 13, 3/4 (2003).
* Locke J. Morrisey, Bibliometric and Bibliographic Analysis in an Era of Electronic Scholarly Communication, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* David Mort, Science makes money for Europe's information companies, Research Information, Winter 2003, pp. 13-14.
* Janneke Mostert, Diffusing information for democracy: an insight of the South African Parliament, Library Management, 25, 1 (January 2004) pp. 28-38.
* Usha Mujoo-Munshi, INSA e-Journals Project, D-Lib Magazine, January 2004.
* OCLC, 2003 OCLC Environmental Scan: Pattern Recognition, OCLC, 2003. A major vision statement including sections on open access.
* Eugenio Pelizzari, Academic staff use, perception and expectations about Open-access archives, an abridged edition of a master's dissertation for New Castle University.
* Jim Pitman, A strategy for open access to society publications, a preprint posted to the author's web site, January 28, 2004.
* David C. Prosser, Between a rock and a hard place: the big squeeze for small publishers, Learned Publishing, January 2004.
* David Prosser, The Next Information Revolution - How Open Access repositories and Journals will Transform Scholarly Communications, Liber Quarterly, 13, 3/4 (2003).
* R. Ramachandran, The 'free access' debate, Frontline ("India's National Magazine"), January 17, 2004.
* R. Ramachandran, 'We have to be able to recover our costs', Frontline, January 17, 2004. An interview with Martin Blume, Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society.
* Brock Read, AskERIC Finds a New Home, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 16, 2004.
* Victoria Reich and David Rosenthal, Preserving today's scientific record for tomorrow, BMJ, January 10, 2004. On LOCKSS.
* Lisa Rein, Brewster Kahle on the Internet Archive and People's Technology, O'Reilly P2P, January 22, 2004.
* Eulalia Roel, Electronic journal publication: A new library contribution to scholarly communication, College & Research Libraries News, January 2004.
* Hans E. Roosendaal, Driving change in the research and HE information market, Learned Publishing, January 2004.
* Dana L. Roth, Chemistry Journals: Cost Effectiveness, Seminal Titles and Exchange Rate Profiteering, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* Judith C. Russell, an untitled presentation at the ALA Midwinter Meeting on what the Government Printing Office (GPO) and Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) are doing to promote public access to information.
* Catherine B. Soehner, The eScholarship Repository: A University of California Response to the Scholarly Communication Crisis, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* Iain Stevenson, 'Open access' is for the rich only, Times Higher Education Supplement, January 9, 2004. A letter to the editor.
* Peter Suber, The Promise of 'Open Access' Publishing: A Live Online Colloquy, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 29, 2004. For more detail, see Lila Guterman above.
* Peter Suber, What you can do to help the cause of open access. A new and greatly expanded version of the list.
* Ed Summers, Building OAI-PMH Harvesters with Net::OAI::Harvester, Ariadne, January 2004.
* Simon Tanner, Survey on US Art Museums regarding Charging Models and Policy for Digital Resources, D-Lib Magazine, January 2004.
* Kate Thomes, Scholarly Communication in Flux: Entrenchment and Opportunity, Science & Technology Libraries, 22, 3/4 (2003).
* University of California, Challenge and Change: Scholarly Communication and the UC Community, UC, December 18, 2003. A report from the UC Scholarly Communication Seminars held in October and November, 2003.
* John Unsworth, The Next Wave: Liberation Technology, Chronicle of Higher Education, January 30, 2004.
* Sam Vaknin, Project Gutenberg's anabasis, United Press International, January 7, 2004. An interview with Michael Hart, founder of Project Gutenberg.
* William Watson, Napster for Nerds, Montreal Gazette, January 13, 2004. On the OA Social Science Research Network, worth publicizing despite the false and harmful analogy to Napster in the article title.
* Geoff Watts, Crusaders for a truly free flow of ideas, Times Higher Education Supplement, January 5, 2004.
* Britta Woldering, The European Library: Integrated Access to the National Libraries of Europe, Ariadne, January 2004.
* Zachary Zimmerman, Learning the Language of Systems Biology, BioIT World, December 15, 2003. An interview with Princeton geneticist David Botstein, including his thoughts on PLoS and open access.
* The December issue of _Access_ carries several OA-related stories.
* The presentations from the INDEST meeting on eprint archiving and electronic theses and dissertations (Delhi, October 7, 2003) are now online.
* The presentations at the conference, Electronic Scientific, Technical, and Medical Journal Publishing and Its Implications (Washington, D.C., May 19-20, 2003) are now online.
* The presentations from the SPARC/ARL session, Open Access: Getting From Here to There (January 10), at the ALA Midwinter Meeting (San Diego, January 9-14, 2004) are now online.
* A new issue of Open Access Now was published on January 19.
* I've added 31 new conferences to the conference page since the last issue. Tomorrow I'll delete the second asterisk marking them and the new entries will blend into the rest of the collection.
* Bloglet is fixed. It's been working for other blogs all along, and formerly worked for us, but somehow got snagged on a mysterious incompatibility. Matt Cockerill of BMC identified the problem and solved it early in January. Now you can receive the Open Access News blog postings by email once again. To sign up, just use the form on the blog sidebar or the blog About page. (Thank-you, Matt!)
Open Access News blog
* I'm looking for vivid and persuasive anecdotes that show the benefits of open access and the harms caused by the lack of it. Go back through your memories, email boxes, and conference notes to reassemble stories that can help change minds. Don't send them to me directly, but to our discussion forum, where everyone can make use of them.
This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written by Peter Suber and published by SPARC. The views I express in this newsletter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC.
To unsubscribe, send any message to <SPARC-OANewsfirstname.lastname@example.org>.
Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy of this issue, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the first two sites below.
SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum
Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter editorial position
Newsletter, archived back issues
Forum, archived postings
Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement
Guide to the Open Access Movement
Timeline of the Open Access Movement
Sources for the newsletter and blog
Open Access News blog
SOAN is an open-access publication under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Users may freely copy, distribute, and display its contents, but must give credit to the author. To read the full license, visit
Return to the Newsletter archive